Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Blackburn Buccaneer Aircraft

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Air what consideration he has given to putting into service with the Royal Air Force, after appropriate modifications, the Blackburn Buccaneer aircraft, at present in service with the Royal Navy.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Amery): This possibility was carefully considered before the development contract for the TSR2 was placed but was rejected.

Mr. Cronin: Is it not the case that as a result of the delays and irresolution in the Air Ministry the R.A.F. now has no long-range, no flying strike aircraft, and no early prospect of one, whereas the Navy has this bomber which combines all these qualities? Could not the right hon. Gentleman be a little less fastidious and accept nine-tenths of a loaf instead of no bread at all?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. I think the Air Force position in this is a perfectly satisfactory one. The Canberra is to be fitted with the AS30, a new air-to-surface guided bomb, which will keep it effective for a number of years. It would be uneconomic to replace it except with an aircraft which has a long operational life.

Mr. Mulley: Is not the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless aware that there may be a difficulty if we have to carry the Canberra too far into the future? Is he satisfied that we shall get a replacement for the Canberra before it becomes operationally out of date?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir. The TSR2 is expected to be in service in the mid-'sixties.

Units, South-East Asia (Operational Rôle)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement on the future operational rôle of the Royal Air Force units in South-East Asia.

Mr. Amery: These units are deployed to assist in the defence of Malaya, for Commonwealth defence and for the preservation of peace in South-East Asia.

Mr. Cronin: Could the right hon. Gentleman elaborate that a little more? Is he not aware that the radius of action of all the aircraft which are stationed in Butterworth and Singapore Island itself is well inside the limits of any prospective enemy target?

Mr. Amery: I am anxious not to offend the Chinese affiliations which the hon. Member has recently registered, but we aim to provide a balanced force of air defence, strike and reconnaissance aircraft in the theatre, and I think we can achieve this.

Weather Forecasts (Fog)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Air on what measurements the official definition of fog, as used in weather forecasts, is based; and what steps he is taking to alter the definition so as to be of greater value to the public who listen to such forecasts.

Mr. Amery: In weather forecasts intended for the public, the Meteorological Office uses the expressions "fog" and "dense fog" when visibility is expected to be below 200 yards or 55 yards respectively.
Occasionally the term "slight fog" is used when visibility is expected to be between 200 and 1,100 yards.
These criteria have been in use for some years and are, I understand, in line with those used by the railways and the motoring organisations.
I am not aware of any general feeling that they should be altered.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does not my right hon. Friend think it rather stupid to talk about fog when one can see up to 1,100 yards, the distance from Parliament Square to Nelson's Column? Ought not that, from the public point of view, to be brought down to about 500 yards, instead of 1,100 yards?

Mr. Amery: This is "slight fog" and 1,100 yards when one is driving a fast car or a railway train is not really all that far.

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist any attempt to cook the figures he has just announced.

Recruiting

Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent his recruiting drive for airmen has proved a success; and at what estimated cost.

Mr. Amery: The recruitment of airmen in 1961 was, on the whole, satisfactory, although there are some trades in which we should like to have more recruits.
Expenditure in 1961 on advertising to support airmen recruiting was £85,000.
I regret that other costs cannot be separately identified.

Mr. Mason: Does not the Minister think that this has been a costly exercise, particularly having in mind that it was designed to undo the damage caused by the premature missile policy of his right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who was then Minister of Defence?

Mr. Amery: If the hon. Member is referring to the figure of £85,000 which I have just read, it is only about £10 per head, which is not a great deal to spend. Many firms in the country with a much smaller turnover than the Air Force would not hesitate to spend such a sum.

Mr. Mason: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if it had not been for the rather premature policy of the then Minister of Defence, this £85,000 on advertisements in the Press to recruit airmen who thought there was no future in piloted aircraft and manned bombers would not have been at all necesary?

Mr. Amery: We have always had to do a certain amount of advertising. I

do not think the difference would have been very great.

Mr. Mulley: asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent the recruiting figures for 1961 meet the requirements of the Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amery: After a poor start, aircrew recruiting improved in 1961. Requirements have been met over a considerable part of the year, but we still need more aircrew both for the direct entry and the general list. Recruiting to ground officer branches was fairly satisfactory, but we need more recruits for some professional branches to meet long-term requirements.
Recruitment of ground airmen was broadly satisfactory. There were no problems in the main technical trades, but there were fewer recruits than we should have liked in some administrative and operating trades.
Overall, the recruiting outlook is reasonably satisfactory and attention is being concentrated on improving intakes in the difficult areas.

Mr. Mulley: The Secretary of State has been a little vague in his Answer. Is he satisfied that the target for 1961 has been met, except for one or two categories? Which are those categories? Is he in the same difficulty as the Army with regard to police, drivers, stretcher bearers, and so on? Can he be a little more definite about the categories in which there is a short-fall? How far is the total now away from the total forecast last April?

Mr. Amery: Our main difficulties have been in the recruitment of police, some radar operators, catering assistants, and various unskilled trades of that kind. As regards officers, the technical, medical, dental and educational branches have given us some difficulty. As regards aircrew, which is the problem I was most concerned about at the time of the last Air Estimates, the latest figures—not over the whole year, but over recent months—are satisfactory.

Handley Page Dart Herald Aircraft

Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many times demonstrations have been given to officers of


the Royal Air Force and officials of his Department showing the capabilities and operational rôles of the Handley Page Dart Herald aircraft; and how many he intends to order for the Royal Air Force as a result.

Mr. Goodhew: asked the Secretary of State for Air if the military version of the Handley Page Dart Herald satisfies the operational requirements of the Royal Air Force as a close-support military transport; whether there is any comparable aircraft immediately available at no greater price; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amery: There has been one demonstration of the Herald specifically for the Royal Air Force, though, of course, the aircraft has been seen on a number of other occasions.
The Herald is one of the aircraft which are being considered for the light cargo military transport rôle. No decision has, however, been taken, about an order and I am therefore unable to make a statement.

Mr. Mason: I assume that the Minister has also seen the recent demonstration of the Avro 748. I hope that he will assure the House that he is not prepared to be a shuttlecock between the aircraft companies and the present Minister of Aviation. Is he not aware that the Herald at the moment can do the job? It is certainly cheaper than the Avro 748 and it is readily available. To what extent does the Avro 748 compete with the Herald?

Mr. Amery: We are at present assessing the strong and weak points of all the aircraft we are considering for this rôle. Until this assessment is completed I am not in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Goodhew: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the matter which is of paramount importance is that the R.A.F. should have the right aircraft at the right price as soon as possible? Will he impress on his right hon. Friends that many Members of the House and people outside would consider it iniquitous if the R.A.F. were denied this aircraft merely because Handley Page had not received a take-over bid which it found acceptable or, indeed, if it were

found that this contract was being used as an instrument of blackmail to force a merger upon the company to comply with a policy which has been arranged later than the development of this aircraft?

Mr. Amery: I am naturally anxious to get the best possible aircraft for the Service.

Mr. Mulley: Can the Minister be a little more forthcoming? Can he not give us an assurance that the only consideration will be the needs of the Royal Air Force and that he will not allow the difficulties of his right hon. Friends either to persuade him to take the wrong aircraft or to unduly delay placing the order if the Royal Air Force for Service reasons deems it necessary to do so now?

Mr. Amery: I must await the final assessment of the qualities and deficiencies of the different aircraft under consideration before I can make a statement.

Personnel, Chequers

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many Royal Air Force and Women's Royal Air Force personnel are employed at Chequers; on what duties they are engaged; and what is the total annual cost to public funds.

Mr. Amery: Thirteen members of the Women's Royal Air Force work at Chequers as cooks and stewardesses.
The gross annual cost to air votes is £7,500, but the Chequers Trust repays £600 a year and the cost of food for the W.R.A.F. personnel, which is about £950 a year.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the comparatively few week-ends in the year when the Prime Minister is at Chequers, is not this a scandalous waste of public money and woman power? Would not there be a substantial economy if part-time civilian domestic staff were hired for the odd week-ends?

Mr. Amery: No. This subject has been studied on several occasions and we are satisfied that this is the best way to run Chequers.

Sir A. V. Harvey: How do these figures compare with the figures applicable during the period when the then Mr. Attlee was the incumbent at Chequers?

Mr. Amery: The figures repaid from the Trust were £800 and £600, but I have not got details of the total cost here. I can tell the House one interesting difference. Today the members of the W.R.A.F. are all volunteers. At that time it was in the hands of another Service and they had to be drafted.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why this is the business of the Royal Air Force? What has it got to do with this?

Mr. Amery: That is very easy to explain. The Services have taken it in turns since the war. On security grounds it was thought better during the war that the Services should run the establishment, and it has continued on that basis ever since. I think that there are very good grounds for it.

Mr. Lipton: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Germany

Mr. Mulley: asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent our contribution to the Second Tactical Air Force meets the undertaking given in the modified Brussels Treaty; and if he will make a statement as to the future rôle of Royal Air Force, Germany.

Mr. Amery: Our Air Forces in Germany accord with our Treaty commitments.
As regards the second part of the Question, it is our policy to concentrate on the strike and reconnaissance roles.
No change in this policy is planned.

Mr. Mulley: The Treaty talked about the provision of a tactical air force. Since 1955 there have been substantial reductions in the strength of R.A.F., Germany. Will the Secretary of State say by how many we have reduced? Will he give an assurance that there is no intention to reduce the existing strength of R.A.F. Germany?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Member will not expect me to give exact figures of the number of aircraft. There has been no reduction, but some strengthening, in hitting power, although there has been a reduction in the overall number of aircraft. This results from the fact that, with the introduction of more modern aircraft, a smaller number of aircraft is able to hit harder than the larger number we had before.

Cadets, Cranwell (G.C.E. Passes)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will give a list showing the number of passes in Advanced levels of the General Certificate of Education obtained by each of the cadets admitted to the Royal Air Force College at Cranwell in the last intake.

Mr. Amery: Of this month's entry to Cranwell twenty-nine cadets had two or more "A" level passes, the normal standard, and seven had equivalent qualifications.
The remaining two cadets had each obtained one "A" level pass and narrowly failed to gain the second; in other respects they were highly suitable.

Mr. Fernyhough: What are the special qualities which the Selection Board takes into account when it admits those with only one pass at Advanced level when generally the condition laid down is that cadets must have two passes at Advanced level?

Mr. Amery: There are obviously borderline cases—when somebody is very close to passing his second "A" level, when there has been a special recommendation by the headmaster, or when someone for some reason is thought to be peculiarly well qualified for absorbing the Cranwell course.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is it only recommendation from the headmaster or is it other influential people who are able to push cadets through, as against those from working-class homes who do not perhaps have influential people behind them to the same extent?

Mr. Amery: I can assure the hon. Member that there is no question of class discrimination or anything of that kind. He appreciates as well as I do that


some boys, who have obviously got it in them to be good officers, perhaps even good commanders, may not have at that particular moment in their lives exactly the right academic qualifications. I should be very sorry if we limited ourselves absolutely rigidly by too strict an adherence to the standards we lay down. We stick to them fairly rigidly but it is important to have some loophole to bring in people who obviously have got the qualifications.

Thor Missile Bases

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many Thor missile bases are to be dismantled; and what alternative weapons are intended to replace them.

Mr. Amery: No decision has yet been taken on the rundown of the Thor force. As the House knows, we plan to base our deterrent in the latter part of this decade mainly on the Mk. 2 Vulcan armed with Skybolt.

Mr. Allaun: But is it not a fact that a decision to dismantle the Thor has recently been discussed? How much longer does the right hon. Gentleman intend to waste 4,000 skilled men and millions of pounds a year in the upkeep of the Thor? Also, if the reason for considering the dismantling of the Thor is its vulnerability, will not dependence in its place on the Skybolt merely mean extending the possibility of annihilation from East Anglia to the whale of the country?

Mr. Amery: That is quite a mouthful. We are, of course, continually studying all our weapon systems to see how far they need modification or replacement. No decision has been taken yet about the period for which the Thor will be kept in service. As to the last part of the supplementary question, it is our firm belief that peace is most effectively protected by the deterrent policy and, where our country is concerned, by a British independent contribution to that policy.

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman says definitely that no decision has been taken. Has he seen an article in The Times this morning, in a prominent position, by its defence correspondent, which states that as a result of the dis

cussions leading to the White Paper which is to come before the House next month decisions have been taken—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question seems to be out of order, because he appears to be asking the Minister to deny or confirm a newspaper observation.

Mr. Bellenger: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, for having put my supplementary question in that form. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in preparation for the White Paper on defence Which is to be submitted to the House in February, no definite decisions or discussions have taken place to do away with the Thor missile bases?

Mr. Amery: With all respect to The Times and to the right hon. Gentleman, I can only repeat that no decision has been taken.

Mr. Shinwell: If no decision has been taken, why not? Does not everybody know that these missile bases are no longer of any value?

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. On the contrary, we are satisfied that the Thor still makes an important contribution to the deterrent. This is, in fact, the largest concentration of intermediate ballistic missiles on this side of the Atlantic.

Mr. Mulley: While I do not dispute the last statement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has not learned that the whole strategy of N.A.T.O., as publicly expounded by General Norstad and others, is to get rid of these first-strike weapons in favour of second-strike capability? Is he not giving this very careful consideration? Also, can he give a date when he will be able to tell the House when the Thor bases are to be dismantled?

Mr. Amery: As we have explained to the House in the context of the decision on Blue Streak, we should, naturally, prefer hard weapons—those which are invulnerable and difficult to attack—to soft ones. Nevertheless, in the present state of the art, soft weapons like the Thor still represent an important part of the deterrent.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Births, East Kilbride

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give, for the latest year for which figures are available, the number of babies born to East Kilbride mothers at home, and in various maternity hospitals and homes in Lanarkshire.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): In 1961, of 814 babies born to East Kilbride mothers, 256 were born at home, 274 in hospitals in Lanarkshire and 284 in hospitals and nursing homes outside the county.

Mrs. Hart: May we not have details of the various hospitals and maternity homes within Lanarkshire to which East Kilbride mothers have to travel? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these places are situated many miles from East Kilbride and that this may involve a husband in the sacrifice of a day's wages in order to visit his wife? Further, is he aware that this is an astonishing reflection on the Government's new hospital building programme if Scotland's biggest new town cannot have a maternity unit for the large numbers of babies born there?

Mr. Galbraith: If the hon. Lady wants details of all the hospitals in Lanarkshire to which these mothers go to have their children born, I should be delighted to give them to her, but that is not what she asked for in her Question.

Burglary and Fire Insurance (Law)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the need for a revision of the law relating to burglary and fire insurance in Scotland; and if he will set up a Committee to inquire into this need and make recommendations.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): My right hon. Friend has heard no suggestions that this aspect of the law is unsatisfactory, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman will inform me of any difficulty that has come to his notice I shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that many people think that the doctrine of no-claim bonus should apply to burglary and fire insurance as it does to certain other forms of insurance? While insurance policies undoubtedly arise from a contract, there is no equality as between the insurance companies and the policy holders; the policy holders have to take it or leave it. Is he not aware that there is a great deal of discontent with the present situation in which the doctrine of no-claim bonus does not apply to burglary or fire insurance, especially in cases where policy holders have paid premiums over long periods without ever having a burglary or fire?

Mr. Brooman-White: When the Law Reform Committee last looked into insurance law in Scotland, it recommended that there was no need for further legislation on the subject.

Education Authority Bursary Regulations

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in his forthcoming review of the present Education Authority Bursary Regulations, he proposes to adopt a hardship criterion that will ensure uniformity with students' allowances for university and similar awards.

Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend is inviting the interested bodies to take part in discussion on these Regulations next month. He will consider their views before deciding what proposals should be included when Regulations are drafted.

Mr. Thomson: When considering these views, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the importance of allowing young people over the age of 15 who would benefit from a further period of full-time education at school to have the maximum financial encouragement to take it? Will he also ensure that there is no financial discrimination against young people staying on at school compared with young people going on to various forms of further education?

Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend will take note of those points.

Remand Homes

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take regarding the recommendations of the Special Committee of the Scottish Advisory Council on child care in remand homes.

Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend has asked local authorities to submit proposals for improving their present remand home arrangements. He has also asked the local authority associations for their views on the more general recommendations. Revised Remand Home Rules are now being prepared and will be issued shortly.

Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be strong and widespread support for the main recommendation of the Committee that remand homes should be taken over by the Secretary of State? Is he aware that this applies particularly to Dundee, where there is a long-standing problem of a very inadequate remand home? Will he in the meantime give the Dundee Corporation every encouragement to go ahead with the building of a new and adequate remand home pending the Secretary of State taking over the financial responsibility for it?

Mr. Brooman-White: We are well aware of the Dundee problem and hope that, now that we have the Report, we shall be able to make progress in solving it.

Mr. Hoy: As the main recommendation of the Committee calls for a decision not so much by local authorities but by the Secretary of State about the taking over of remand homes, when can we expect a statement about it?

Mr. Brooman-White: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I ought not to comment further until we have heard the views of the local authorities.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that very scathing comments are made about the quality of existing remand homes? If the Secretary of State is not prepared to accept the Committee's major recommendation that the Secretary of State should take over remand homes and is passing the financial burden on to the local authorities, may we have an undertaking that in

that circumstance the Secretary of State will take account of this in the next general grant proposals?

Mr. Brooman-White: I give no undertaking in that respect but would remind the hon. Gentleman that on 3rd January local authorities were asked to submit proposals for meeting the shortcomings in the service and that my right hon. Friend intends shortly to make an Order specifying the date when premises used as remand homes will have to have his certificate of approval.

Hospital, Ballochmyle

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the nature of the correspondence he has received from the Cumnock Town Council on the question of the future of the hospital at Ballochmyle; and the nature of his reply.

Mr. Galbraith: The town council has pressed for the retention of general hospital services at Ballochmyle. My right hon. Friend has told it that the Western Regional Hospital Board's proposals for hospital services in Ayrshire, which he is now considering, include the continuation of some general hospital services at Ballochmyle to serve the people in the Cumnock area.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread fear in that area that in some new economy drive this hospital may be closed down, or that some of its services may be seriously curtailed? Can he give an assurance that that is not so?

Mr. Galbraith: As I live in the area myself, naturally I am as well aware as the hon. Gentleman who represents it what the people are feeling. The answer is that the matter is still under consideration. I cannot go further than that.

Welfare Foods, Ayrshire

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what amounts of cod liver oil and orange juice were distributed by Ayr County Council Health Department for the twelve weeks starting 4th July, 1960, and for a similar period starting 1st September, 1961; and what


was the percentage decrease in the amount of each welfare food.

Mr. Galbraith: In the twelve weeks from 4th July, 1960, 23,105 bottles of orange juice and 3,906 bottles of cod liver oil were issued by Ayr County Council. In the twelve weeks from 4th September, 1961, 5,047 bottles of orange juice and 1,038 bottles of cod liver oil were issued. This represents a decrease of 78·2 per cent. for orange juice and 70·9 per cent. for cod liver oil.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Under-Secretary aware of the great concern of the medical officer of health and the members of the Ayr County Council because of this steep decrease—an 80 per cent. decrease—in welfare foods? Would he not agree that it was a wrong decision to impose charges? Is he further aware that many knowledgeable people in the medical world in Scotland think that it was a shocking thing for the Secretary of State for Scotland to lend his support to charges being placed on these welfare foods? Could he indicate whether the repercussions are to the effect that there can only be a great increase in illness and the spread of more disease among the weaker and poorer-paid sections of our community?

Mr. Galbraith: I think the hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong.

Mr. Manuel: On a point of order. May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker? I have given the percentage decrease, and I have based my supplementary question on that. How can it be wrong, if the Answer was given by the hon. Gentleman himself?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that some difference about figures between the hon. Gentleman and the Minister does not raise a point of order for me.

Miss Herbison: Is not the Minister worried and shocked by what these figures reveal? When he found what the figures revealed, did he try to find out what has been happening in the rest of Scotland? Is he not ashamed that the policy of his Government is militating against the health of young children in Scotland, and is he satisfied that these mean, petty increases by the Government should have this detrimental effect on the health of the children?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Lady must remember that we have not got to the election yet. I am neither worried, shocked nor ashamed, and the reason is that I come to a different conclusion from that of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). The important thing is not the amount of welfare foods being consumed, but whether or not—and this is the Answer that I gave before Christmas—the health of the mothers and babies has suffered. That is what we will keep our eyes on, and at the moment there is no evidence that it is suffering.

Miss Herbison: The Minister has said that he will keep his eyes on the health of the children and mothers. In other words, have we to wait complacently until mothers and children are ill as the result of these cuts? Is that what the Minister is waiting for?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Manuel: Owing to the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will take an early opportunity to raise the matter and give the hon. Gentleman more information in an Adjournment debate.

Housing (Revaluation)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the wide disparity in the basis of assessing houses during the recent revaluation in Scotland; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that a uniform basis of assessment will be used by the assessors at the revaluation to be made in 1966.

Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir. It is impossible to form a view on this question until all valuation appeals have been decided. My right hon. Friend proposes in due course to ask the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council to review the arrangements made for the revaluation and to advise on any matters appearing to it to require further consideration before the next revaluation.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that some valuation appeal committees refuse to accept comparisons with subjects outside their valuation areas? While I am pleased to learn from the hon. Gentleman this afternoon that


some reference will be made to the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council, may I ask him to stress the difficulties which have arisen as a result of the refusal of some of these appeal committees in this instance?

Mr. Galbraith: The best thing to do is to wait until all the appeals have been dealt with.

Children (False Teeth)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children under the age of 17 were fitted with false teeth under the National Health Service in the years 1951, 1956, and 1961.

Mr. Galbraith: The earliest figures available are for 1954, when 2,134 children were provided with false teeth. The number in 1956 was 3,006, and in 1961—for which a final figure is not yet available—it is estimated at about 5,000.

Mr. Gourlay: Does the Minister realise that these figures indicate a serious decline in the health of Scottish children's teeth? Will he ensure that his Department gives the maximum publicity to the dental health education campaign, which started on Monday of this week?

Mr. Galbraith: I will certainly do that. As the hon. Member knows, it is largely because of my right hon. Friend's Department that the campaign is taking place.

Mr. Brewis: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the best thing for them to do would be to drink more milk, particularly in school?

Mr. W. Hamilton: And orange juice.

Mr. Galbraith: Not only to drink more milk, but to eat fewer biscuits with it.

Edenhall Hospital, Musselburgh

Mr. J. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will take steps to permit the widening of the scope of Edenhall Hospital at Musselburgh, so that an out-patient department can be established to meet the needs of the people of Midlothian.

Mr. Galbraith: This hospital has a specialised function and the needs of war pensioners must continue to take priority. My right hon. Friend is, however, asking the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board to examine the suggestions that have been made and will write to the hon. Member in due course.

Mr. Hill: Is the Minister aware that there is a ward in this hospital which is reserved for such patients as the Minister has described, but that it is never used, and that people in the surrounding area must of necessity go to Edinburgh for examination, which costs quite a lot in time and money? Is he also aware that there is need for an outpatient department in this hospital and that the local general practitioners are in favour of it? Cannot the Minister consider the matter again?

Mr. Galbraith: I think that the hon. Gentleman cannot have understood my original Answer, because the matter is being examined. There is no question of reconsideration; it is under examination now.

Ambulances, Midlothian

Mr. J. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ambulances are operating in Midlothian; and whether he is satisfied that this number is sufficient to cover the needs of that area.

Mr. Galbraith: Six ambulances operate from depots in Midlothian, and the area is also served by ambulances from Edinburgh; the number of journeys per ambulance suggests that the existing arrangements provide adequate cover.

Mr. Hill: Is the Minister aware that in the south-east part of the constituency of Midlothian some patients are carried by private contractors, that there are great complaints about the delay, and that when ambulances do come to collect patients they operate like a public service collecting three or four patients in the same ambulance, though they do not necessarily go to the same hospital, thus causing great pain and discomfort? Will he consider the importance of having more ambulances for this area?

Mr. Galbraith: The average number of journeys is two journeys per ambulance per day, and that does not seem excessive. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular case in mind and would care to let me know about it, I should be delighted to examine it.

Mr. Hoy: The Minister will be aware that in the last few days I have sent him details of a case in which an ambulance was very late in arriving after an accident had taken place, and was then manned only by the driver. Will he look at this problem when examining the case raised by my hon. Friend?

Police Force (Strength)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the increase over the previous year in the total strength of the police force in Scotland at 31st December, 1961; and how far this is below establishment.

Mr. Brooman-White: During 1961, the actual total male and female strength of the Scottish police increased by 346. The authorised establishment also increased during the year by 433 and on 31st December, 1961, the actual strength was 566 below establishment.

Mr. Brewis: Would my hon. Friend agree that these figures are moderately encouraging? Will he continue to ensure that transfers from one force to another, and promotion outwith their own forces for the abler police officers, will continue, so that new recruits can get a good opportunity in their new career?

Mr. Brooman-White: Yes, Sir. The main shortage is still in the Glasgow area, but even there the position is improving. I note the hon. Member's other point.

Forest Management Research

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that there are sufficient facilities for forest management research available in Scotland to private and State forestry owners; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): Yes, Sir. The research programme which the

Forestry Commission is conducting and financing in Scotland covers forestry management as well as other aspects of forestry. The Scottish Woodland Owners' Association is consulted about the programme, and the research results are made available to private forestry owners.

Mr. Brewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that many forestry interests in Scotland are not at all satisfied about the research facilities available? Is he further aware that a northern country like Scotland has a distinct advantage in timber production, and that in fact we have a far bigger acreage than England? Can he possibly give an assurance that in the new industries which are coming in for timber production we shall not lose out to England because all the research facilities are situated in the south of England and not in Scotland?

Mr. Leburn: I should be very pleased to give my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall always watch this point very carefully, but at the present time my right hon. Friend is satisfied that forest research in Scotland is receiving proper attention.

Mr. Hannan: Will the hon. Gentleman give the number of students at management research colleges and say how many are sent by private woodland owners and the cost per student? Is not this another subsidy to private ownership?

Mr. Leburn: No. We have under discussion in this Question forest management research carried out by the Forestry Commission. There is no question of students being involved here at all.

House Purchase

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce a system of financial grants to assist and encourage persons who are anxious to own their own homes.

Mr. Galbraith: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend's proposals to encourage private building in Scotland are set out in the White Paper Housing in Scotland and, in so far as they require legislation, are embodied in the Housing (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the terms of that reply are a repudiation of both his and


his party's election promises about having a property-owning democracy? Does he not realise that interest rates are so prodigious that it is very difficult for young people to own their own homes? Will he not at the very least agree that they are entitled to have the same subsidies that farmers get when they build houses on their own farms?

Mr. Galbraith: I think that a large part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is entirely by the way, but I am afraid that I do not agree with him. If he looks at the Bill he will see that there are schemes for private co-operative ownership on the Scandinavian model which would be a great help to the very kind of people he has in mind.

Law Hospital, Lanarkshire

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what facilities for the treatment of acute cases will be provided at Law Hospital when the new hospital is functioning at Strathclyde, Motherwell.

Mr. Galbraith: Law Hospital will have 150 acute beds covering the major specialities of medicine, surgery, gynaecology, and orthopaedics.

Miss Herbison: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that this small number of beds, 150, at this hospital will be able to attract the consultant staff, both medical and surgical, whom one would want in these modern days to have for our people, and can he also assure us that when the acute cases number is run down to 150 this will still continue as a nurses' training establishment?

Mr. Galbraith: I should like notice of the latter part of that supplementary question.

Miss Herbison: Surely we can have an answer to the first part? Surely when the Secretary of State was examining this and finally decided that 150 beds would be needed for acute cases this was a matter to which he ought to have given serious consideration—the attracting of the proper staff?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Lady appreciates that it will be working in collaboration with the other two hospitals at Strathclyde and Coatbridge.

Mr. Lawson: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not so scatter the beds for acute services that it is not possible to provide Lanarkshire with a decent, large-sized hospital which will be centrally situated to meet the needs of most people in the area and which will be able to provide all the medical and surgery facilities which modern medicine requires?

Mr. Galbraith: That is precisely the intention of my right hon. Friend.

Mrs. Hart: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is most unfair to the board of management of Law Hospital if it is not made clear in the very near future indeed to them by the Western Region Hospital Board how far they may expect to proceed with their own proposals for future developments at Law Hospital following the decision of the Secretary of State? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many problems which have to be studied and that his Answer today cannot possibly be a reassurance to Law Hospital?

Mr. Galbraith: I am very well aware that many points have to be discussed and details are in the process of being planned and worked out now.

Rheumatological Diseases (Treatment)

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the new provisions will be available in the west of Scotland for the treatment of and research into rheumatological diseases.

Mr. Galbraith: Working drawings for the rheumatology unit are in the course of preparation. The Western Regional Hospital Board hopes that work will start in the autumn of this year.

Miss Herbison: Since there have been so many delays in the provision of this, and since over half the population of Scotland is at this moment and always has been denied these facilities, will the Under-Secretary of State assure us that this date really will be honoured and that I shall not at this time next year have to be asking the Question which I have been asking in the House for a very long time?

Mr. Galbraith: I think the fact that this date has gone back a bit shows how very dangerous it is to make estimates. All I can assure the hon. Lady is that we are as anxious as she is to press ahead with the matter.

Police Pensions

Mr. J. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many officers retired from Scottish police forces are receiving pensions under the provisions of the Police Pensions Acts; and what is the range of the amounts of individual pensions.

Mr. Brooman-White: There were 3,870 officers retired from Scottish police forces in receipt of pensions at 15th May, 1960, which is the latest available figure. The information requested in the second part of the Question is not available.

Lung Cancer and Bronchitis

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how the number of deaths from lung cancer and bronchitis in Scotland compares with that in England and Wales.

Mr. Galbraith: The death rate from lung cancer in Scotland in 1960 was 46·5 per 100,000 population compared with 48·3 in England and Wales. The death rate from bronchitis was 42·5 in Scotland compared with 58·2 in England and Wales.

Dr. Thompson: In view of the association of these diseases, particularly bronchitis, with air pollution, and in view of the fact that certain areas of Scotland are very vulnerable, because of the prevailing winds, to polluted air carried into their midst, will he tell us what research is being done into air pollution in different types of localities in Scotland and what assistance is given to local authorities to get the pollution officers they need?

Mr. Galbraith: I should rather like to look at that point which the hon. Member has raised about pollution and make inquiries into it. As for clean air, my right hon. Friend is pressing local authorities and having some success in getting them to implement clean air schemes.

Milesmark Hospital, Dunfermline (Children's Unit)

Dr. A. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give instructions for the children's unit at Milesmark Hospital, Dunfermline, to be reopened.

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member has provided particulars of two cases where there was delay in arranging for children to go to alternative hospitals, and my right hon. Friend is investigating the circumstances with the hospital authorities. The interests of seriously ill children are, however, not served by dispersing provision beyond the point at which adequate specialised staff and supporting facilities can be maintained, and the extended use of Milesmark for old people is very desirable.

Dr. Thompson: I am not quite sure what the Answer means, but may I say that there is widespread indignation in my constituency by the local authority, by doctors and general practitioners, and by patients at the closing of their children's unit? It means that now they sometimes have to cross the ferry for examination at centres as far distant as Leith. Will the hon. Gentleman look into this point of making available again this small children's unit—of only 12 beds, I think—at Milesmark Hospital?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think I can go as far as that. It may be that those in the hon. Gentleman's constituency who are indignant will be glad to hear that the regional board is looking into the possibilities of first-aid treatment of actually ill children where there may be delay due to transport difficulties.

Mr. W. Hamilton: What reply has the hon. Gentleman made to the protests from general practitioners in the area about the very serious effects of the closure of this hospital? Does he recognise that there is in central West Fife widespread indignation and anger at the crumbs which have fallen from the Secretary of State's table in his recently announced hospital programme?

Mr. Galbraith: I am not aware of what was said in the second part of the supplementary question, and as for the first, I should require notice.

Reid Committee (Report)

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Reid Committee on Conveyancing and Registration of Title to Land is likely to report.

Mr. Brooman-White: I expect that the Committee will submit its Report later this year.

Mr. McInnes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Committee was appointed more than two-and-a-half years ago? Does he not regard that as a reasonable time for the Committee to investigate the matter and submit its Report?

Mr. Brooman-White: We have consulted Lord Reid, and he is aware of the urgency of the Report. I am sure that it will be available this year.

Guest Committee (Report)

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Guest Committee on Licensing is likely to submit its Second Report dealing with the Sale of Excisable Liquor in areas of housing development and re-development.

Mr. Brooman-White: I understand that the Second Report of Lord Guest's Committee will probably be submitted during the latter part of this year, or early next year.

Mr. McInnes: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that here, again, we have a Committee which was appointed two-and-a-half years ago? Does he not agree that something is needed to expedite the work of these Committees? For example, would it not be worth the hon. Gentleman's while to investigate how often they meet?

Mr. Brooman-White: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Lord Guest's remit was dealt with in two parts, and one very complicated part has been reported on already.

Mr. Steele: Am I to understand from the Answers given by the Under-Secretary to these two Questions that both of these Committees are working to rule?

Mr. Brooman-White: They are both, we trust, working effectively.

Approved Schools

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many approved schools are managed by Focal authorities and how many by voluntary organisations; and what is the number of pupils in each category.

Mr. Brooman-White: Of the twenty-two approved schools in Scotland, two are managed by Glasgow education authority and the remainder by voluntary organisations. On 24th January, there were 169 boys in the two authority schools, and 1,151 boys and 243 girls in the other schools.

Mr. Hannan: Do not those figures show the total inadequacy of the present accommodation for such young people? What action has the Minister in view to meet the recently-issued Regulations, and the conditions of accommodation and the provision of teachers for these children?

Mr. Brooman-White: There has been a great increase in committals during the year, which has admittedly led to deficiencies in certain categories. There is a responsibility on authorities to take steps to remove deficiencies, and we hope that further accommodation will become available during the coming year.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the Under-Secretary aware that some of these voluntary bodies are self-appointed, and sometimes not very representative of the local communities they serve? What steps is he taking to make sure, for instance, of the implementation of earlier recommendations that local authority representatives should be on these voluntary bodies?

Mr. Brooman-White: In nearly all cases there are enough education authority representatives on the voluntary bodies.

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the qualifications he proposes for headmasters and teachers in approved schools to comply with his recent Regulations.

Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend does not propose to lay down specific qualifications, since staffing


requirements of individual schools depend on the age, sex and personal needs of the pupils; but he would expect all teaching posts to be filled, wherever possible, by persons holding appropriate teaching qualifications. For senior appointments requiring his prior approval, he would attach great importance to personal qualities together with appropriate experience in education or social and youth service.

Mr. Hannan: How many of these schools at present have headmasters who possess such qualifications? Would not the Under-Secretary agree that, in addition to those teaching qualifications, such headmasters should hold a social sciences certificate?

Mr. Brooman-White: I should like notice of the hon. Gentleman's last point. As to senior appointments, we are very well satisfied with the staff we have available at the present time.

Pedestrians

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent, when local inquiries are held into the siting of direction signs, Belisha beacons, parking meters and the obstructions on pavements in cities in Scotland, he gives consideration to ensuring that pedestrians can walk about in reasonable comfort and with freedom of movement.

Mr. Brooman-White: Local authorities are responsible in the cities for the erection of traffic signs and parking meters. In these matters, my right hon. Friend's powers are primarily concerned with the movement of traffic on the roads. We have no knowledge, to date, of problems from the pedestrian side.

Sir J. Duncan: Will my hon. Friend take my hon. Friend for a walk in some of the streets of London to see how clutered up the pavements are, and how difficult it is to walk along them in the rush hour, and will he give an assurance that the same disastrous "Marpling" conditions will not arise in our Scottish cities?

Mr. Brooman-White: I trust that the Scottish local authorities will take note of my hon. Friend's views.

Loch Lomond

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations the working party, set up to examine water supplies for Central Scotland, has had with the County Council of Dunbartonshire and other interested parties regarding the scheme to supply water from Loch Lomond.

Mr. Galbraith: The local water authorities primarily concerned, including Dunbarton County Council, are directly represented on this working party, which has also kept in touch with other authorities less directly affected.

Mr. Steele: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this suggestion has already caused great concern locally? Is he further aware that any intention to ride roughshod over other interests, particularly fishing and boating interests, will be strongly opposed?

Mr. Galbraith: There is no question of riding roughshod over anyone; the matter is still under consideration.

Mr. Short: Will the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland represent to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government that this proposal is on all fours with the proposal of the Manchester Corporation to extract water from Ullswater? Would the Government—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a different question, and a different Minister.

Mr. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The principle is the same—

Mr. Speaker: The rules of order are also the same.

Mr. Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that was a point of order. If the hon. Member has another one, I will hear him.

Mr. Short: What I suggest is that a new principle is emerging; and that in both Scotland and England large local authorities are now wanting to extract water from large and beautiful lakes of which a great deal of social use is made. It is the same principle.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I do not think that it helps very much on the material point of order.

Local Authority Decisions

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what methods he uses for keeping himself informed of the decisions of local authorities.

Mr. Galbraith: Local authorities themselves report their decisions in matters on which my right hon. Friend requires information in pursuance of his statutory responsibilities. More generally, he is kept informed of local authority opinion through day-to-day contacts between his Departments, including their inspectorates, and the local authority associations and individual local authorities. My right hon. Friend and other Scottish Ministers also have frequent opportunities for meeting local authority representatives themselves

Mr. MacPherson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my hand a letter, addressed by the Scottish Office to the Town Clerk of Falkirk, the gist of which is that one of the local newspapers reported a certain decision of the Falkirk Town Council, and certain reasons for it, and that the Secretary of State would like to know whether that decision was reached, and for those reasons? Does the Under-Secretary of State consider that a proper, or even a reputable, way of keeping in touch?

Mr. Galbraith: I should have to look into the matter before giving a decision.

Technical College, Motherwell

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now able to give a date for the commencement of building of the technical college at Motherwell.

Mr. Brooman-White: The latest information provided by the education authority gives the estimated starting date as February, 1964.

Mr. Lawson: May I recall to the Under-Secretary's notice the fact that in 1958 I was given an assurance that this

college was to be started in January, 1960, and completed in August, 1963? Does he also remember that in November of last year he told me that, because the technical facilities in Lanarkshire were so good, it was not necessary to treat this project as a high priority? Has he since discovered that his statement about the technical facilities in Lanarkshire was wrong?

Mr. Brooman-White: If I remember correctly, what I said to the hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion was that the local authority had taken this view, which was why it had not given high priority to this proposal. It was not until July of last year that we received specific proposals from the Lanarkshire local authority. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, and should like to make headway as much as he would.

Miss Herbison: Surely, the Secretary of State can do something to bring forward the date from February, 1964. Is not the Under-Secretary aware of a case that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and I brought to his notice of a shocking lack of facilities in Lanarkshire for some of our young technical students? With that information to hand, the Secretary of State must be able to do something to influence the local authority to get a move on with the building of this school.

Mr. Brooman-White: We will certainly do what we can, and I welcome the hon. Lady's support. The position is that in July last we received the proposals, which were discussed with the local authority. The local authority is considering the matter further, and I understand that it hopes to submit further proposals to us during the course of next month.

Housing, Sutherland (Elderly Persons)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give Sutherland County Council additional assistance for building two-roomed houses for elderly persons living alone in Helmsdale and elsewhere where they are needed.

Mr. Galbraith: Sutherland County Council is already aware that remote-area subsidy, in addition to the basic


Exchequer subsidy, would be available for two-apartment houses provided for such special needs.

Sir D. Robertson: Will my hon. Friend take immediate action in regard to an ex-Service man who served in two world wars, and who is threatened today with eviction because his house has been sold over his head?

Mr. Galbraith: As I think my hon. Friend knows, I must leave this sort of decision to the county council, which knows all the circumstances.

Mr. Ross: What is the basic subsidy in respect of this? Is it £32, or is it now £12?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman had better wait until we come to that point in Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Victoria Line

Mr. Redhead: asked the Minister of Transport whether the recent announcement by the London Transport Executive of a modification in the plans for the proposed Victoria Line now makes it possible for him to authorise the commencement of the work of construction.

Mr. J. Harvey: asked the Minister of Transport whether the reduced cost of constructing the Victoria line underground railway resulting from the realignment proposed by the London Transport Executive makes it possible for him to authorise the commencement of this project.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) on 24th January.

Mr. Redhead: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that that reply will cause profound disappointment to many thousands of frustrated, weary travellers in north-east London? Does he further realise that the conditions which obtained on London's roads last Monday—though, in that instance, due to unfortunate circumstances—are likely to be the normal experience in a few

years' time, and does he not think, therefore, that this adds urgency to the need for a start to be made on the construction of this vitally necessary new tube?

Mr. Hay: As I explained last week, this is an extremely expensive project which would make an estimated loss of about £3 million a year, and in the present economic circumstances my right hon. Friend does not feel justified in giving the order for a start to be made.

Mr. Harvey: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is nearly fifty years since a new tube railway was built in London? Is it not about time that a little more history was made?

Mr. Mellish: Have not the economic arguments always been present and will not they get worse each year? Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree, since all the experts say that this is an absolute must, that a start should be made?

Mr. Hay: We are in a difficult economic situation at the moment. The British Transport Commission, as the House knows, has a deficit of about £140 million a year and is already engaged in a substantial capital investment programme. My right hon. Friend does not think that this is the appropriate moment at which to embark on this very expensive project.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since the Ministry of Transport is, quite rightly, considering the cost of this project, will my hon. Friend remind the Minister that it often happens that great projects like this become more expensive because they are delayed owing to rises in costs?

Mr. Hay: Fortunately this project is slightly less expensive now than a few months ago, but not sufficiently less expensive to enable us to embark on it.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the reply the hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) mean that, as long as the British Transport Commission is running a heavy deficit, whatever the needs of the people of London there can be no extension of the public transport facilities?

Mr. Hay: No, Sir. That is a complete distortion of what I said. I pointed to the fact that the Commission has a heavy deficit and a heavy capital investment programme and that these are factors which obviously the Government must have in mind before approving this very expensive project.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Mergers and Competition

Mr. Proudfoot: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 16th February, I shall call attention to mergers and the need for competition, and move a Resolution.

Positive Neutralism

Mr. Allaun: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 16th February, I shall call attention to the need for a policy of positive neutralism, and move a Resolution.

Shipbuilding Industry

Mr. Ridley: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 16th February, I shall call attention to the shipbuilding industry, and move a Resolution.

Orders of the Day — ARMY RESERVE BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 19th December].

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(RETENTION OF NATIONAL SERVICEMEN IN ARMY SERVICE.)

3.34 p.m.

The Chairman: The first Amendment on the Notice Paper, in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
(3B) Any person who receives a notice under subsections (1) or (2) of this section may appeal in writing against his retention, such appeal to be considered and determined by the Army Council or any officer not below the rank of major-general deputed by them.
has not been selected, but may be discussed later with the Amendment in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
(3H) Any notice served under subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall be accompanied by a statement informing the recipient that he has a right to appeal on the grounds that the effect of the note will be to inflict unusual hardship either upon him or his dependants and that in the event of his wishing so to appeal he should communicate the grounds of his appeal to his commanding officer forthwith.
In calling the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), in page 1, line 21, it is also possible to discuss four other Amendments, but these have not been selected for a Division. They are in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
(3F) This section shall not operate so as to prevent any doctor of medicine from taking up any appointment which he may have received prior to the receipt by him of any notice referred to in subsections (1) and (2) of this section.
in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
(3G) This section shall not operate so as to prevent any person who has ben allocated a place in any full-time educational course at a university, college or comparable institution in the United Kingdom, from taking up that place on the appropriate day.
in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
(3K) The provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not apply to any such person who has qualified in a learned profession, trade or calling, which requires a training period of whole-time study lasting


not less than three years, and who has obtained employment in such profession, trade or calling involving not less than one year's service, such employment being conditional on that person entering thereupon during the six months following the end of his whole-time service under the said Act of one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight.
and the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 36, at the end to add:
or
(d) who, having the qualifications specified in subsection (3K) of section one of this Act, is engaged in, or about to enter upon, an occupation for which he is so qualified involving, at the time of the acceptance thereof not less than one year's service of which six months have still to elapse".

Mr. Ellis Smith: May I raise two points of order, Sir William? I do so in view of the special circumstances and I hope that you will listen with patience and magnanimity to what I have to say, for I desire to support my comments with evidence to prove that we should not proceed with this Bill.

The Chairman: I would be wrong to give the hon. Member any encouragement to raise points of order along those lines, because the House has already taken a decision that the Bill should be proceeded with and the Committee has no option but to do so.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I wholeheartedly accept that, Sir William, but I want to point out that the introduction of this Bill is one of the most unconstitutional things that have ever been done in the history of Parliament. If you will listen to me with a little patience, you will see that there is something in the points I wish to raise. I am not used to raising points of order without there being something of substance in them.
In Committee, something happened about which hon. Members are now having a similar experience. As a result of our patience, and being familiar with the Standing Orders, we were gradually winning the support of the Chair. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]Since then there has been a hypercritical Select Committee's Report which has completely vindicated and confirmed the view held by my hon. Friends and which we put forward during the Committee stage.
My first point of order, therefore, is that in consideration of that hypercritical Report of the Select Committee—

and I have it with me—should the Bill be proceeded with before the Money Resolution has been framed in accordance with Parliamentary practice?
My second point of order is this: some hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends, have had some experience of Money Resolutions. We won great concessions for our fellow countrymen who were serving in the Armed Forces and we cannot easily forget what has taken place previously regarding Money Resolutions. Seeing that the Money Resolution to the Bill was not phrased in accordance with the Standing Orders and Parliamentary practice—and that a Committee of the whole House could not really be competent to give attention to it—and that the Treasury's representatives before the Select Committee accepted all that, I am wondering whether I shall be able to raise these important issues, perhaps on Clauses 2, 3, or 5.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Member for putting his points, but the facts, with which he may or may not agree, were in the possession of the House when the House decided that the Committee should proceed with the Committee stage of the Bill. Therefore, I feel it my duty to proceed with the Committee stage. I appreciate that the hon. Member has given notice that at a later stage he will seek to raise this matter again. We will see how we get on. For the present, I am in no doubt that we should proceed with the Committee's business, and I therefore ask the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to move the Amendment.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am grateful for your Ruling, Sir William. I accept that the facts were before the House when we were considering the guillotine Motion. It only shows how we slipped up. I shall look forward to having an opportunity of raising the matter on Clause 2, 3 or 5.

Mr. George Wigg: Sir William, you told us that you would not call the first Amendment on the Notice Paper which seeks to add a new subsection (3B), but that it could be discussed on another Amendment. I did not hear what you said after that.

The Chairman: The information is given on the provisional notice of


Amendments. With the Amendment in page 1, line 21, which seeks to add a new subsection (3H), which comes after the Amendment which is about to be moved, may be discussed the first Amendment on the Notice Paper to which the hon. Member has just referred. That Amendment has not been selected for a Division.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
(3C) This section shall not operate so as to prevent any person from taking up any appointment in the service of Her Majesty's Government or of any local authority which he may have received prior to the receipt by him of any notice under subsections (1) and (2) of this section.
I wish to try to mitigate the level of injustice which the Bill does to certain groups of individuals. I think that it is common ground that there can be no doubt that the Bill of necessity imposes grave injustice on certain people. The Government as well as everybody else must recognise that there is grave injustice upon persons who are selected arbitrarily.
The Government should be the more careful of this, since the position which has made the Bill necessary is exclusively of their own making. There is no crisis on our hands, other than the foreseeable one into which the Government have drifted. There has been no new emergency to deal with in Germany, where we have little more than half the number of troops whom we are obligated to maintain there by treaty, and were obligated to maintain there at the time when conscription was abolished. Equally, outside Europe we have no new emergency on our hands. Indeed, for the first time that I can remember since the war we have nobody on active service at all. Yet we have drifted into this situation.
3.45 p.m.
This is not because the Government were disappointed in the number of recruits coming forward. In fact, the recruits whom they had expected have just about arrived. The sole trouble is that, having the Hull Report before them, knowing full well how many men they require for the existing commitments, knowing what those commitments are, without doing a thing about the situation, they have simply drifted into

the situation where the inevitable occurred.
As we said when conscription was abolished, if we are to make this provision work, there must be one of two things. We have either to change our commitments, by reallocating within the Services or by abolishing them as no longer necessary to the interests of this country; or we have got to find new sources of recruitment outside these shores, within the Commonwealth. Neither of these lines was pursued. So we reached the inevitable situation, foreseeable, anticipated and seen by the Government and by everybody else, and supinely drifted into. In those circumstances, when injustice is proposed, arising so directly from the Government's responsibility, surely the Government have a special responsibility to mitigate that injustice as far as they can.
These Amendments which we are discussing together are designed for that purpose, to deal with particular cases, namely, the sort of employment which a man in the Armed Forces cannot walk directly into, the sort of employment the obtaining of which is of its nature a process which takes a good many months, a process which the man cannot initiate unless he can tell his prospective employer, "On the given date I shall be available".
We are, therefore, saying that where a man in this category applies for a job he shall be in a position to say to his prospective employer, "When that date comes I shall be free to take your job", and he shall be able to say that unless he has had notice that he is to be one of the unlucky ones to be called upon to do this extra service. In other words, until the appropriate notice shall have been received, people shall be in a position to apply for appointments on terms on which alone it is of any use to apply for an appointment. It is futile to apply for an appointment unless one is in a position to say that one can take it up.
If we do not accept this Amendment or get a specific assurance that these cases will be covered, we are not merely asking some men for an additional six months' service—since those whom we do ask to perform the additional six


months' service we are delaying in their professions for an additional period of probably not less than six months—but we are equally delaying everybody whom we do not call up, because the uncertainty which is being created makes not only those who are called up but all those who are liable to be called up unavailable for any of these appointments.
Turning to the specific Amendments, the first relates to people applying for appointments in the Civil Service and in local government service. In the main, of course, these will probably be people with some sort of professional qualification, surveyors, medical officers, and the like.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw: On a point of order, Sir William. Before the hon. and learned Gentleman pursues that point, may I ask him to pursue it more quietly for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker)? I see that the right hon. Gentleman has now been woken up. I should not like to think that he was not slumbering well.

Mr. Paget: Considering that the time available has been cut down for this important Measure, it ought not to be wasted by trivial points of order like that, particularly from those benches.
This may not seem a serious point to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), but it is of vital importance to a considerable number of young men in the Services who have had their careers interrupted, who have made application for these jobs and who now know that they must be put behind every applicant who is not in the Service because only such applicants are in a position to take the jobs if offered to them. This is why we suggest, in our Amendment, that
This section shall not operate so as to prevent any person taking up any appointment in the service of Her Majesty's Government or of any local authority which he may have received prior to the receipt by him of any notice…
The next group—perhaps this is the most important of all—is covered by the Amendment in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
(3F) This section shall not operate so as to prevent any doctor of medicine from taking up any appointment which he may have

received prior to the receipt by him of any notice referred to in subsections (1) and (2) of this section.
This Amendment deals with the special case of doctors. Doctors, of course, have to go to appointments from the Army. A doctor cannot just step out of the Army and start earning in his profession. He must obtain an appointment with a hospital, with the National Health Service, or, perhaps, with a private employer. Of course, for the vast majority it is the National Health Service, and the structure of that Service requires that there must be an interval of a good many months, normally no fewer than six months, between application and commencement in the appointment. Generally, it is even more than that.
Do we really want to put doctors in the Service in the position of having virtually no employment except some sort of locum tenens work for a period of about six months after their discharge, even though they are not required by the Army? The uncertainty makes them unavailable for jobs at the time when they have to apply for them. Surely we should deal with that.
I have a letter here from a doctor which sums up the position very well:
I feel that many National Service medical officers will be most anxious to return to more worthwhile hospital work as soon as possible and make up for the time spent in National Service. In my own case I have made application for a post in my teaching hospital beginning in September, 1962, but if service is extended my entry will be delayed for a further year. When specialising in surgery, one of the most important principles is to 'be in the right place at the right time' in applying for appropriate surgical posts. The chance of achieving this if more than two years have elapsed after leaving one's own teaching hospital gets less and less, as the hospital chiefs tend to forget their house surgeons and are very suspicious of the bad surgical habits that are so easily picked up in an Army hospital. It has been shown time and time again that three-year short service commission doctors rarely succeed in civilian hospital practice for these very reasons. I am sure that many of my colleagues are in a similar position and. as you can imagine, there is a strong feeling of grievance among those of us who have been placed at such a big disadvantage over those of our colleagues who have not had to render National Service.
That is a man who actually has an appointment. He is lucky at least in this, that, having got it, if he is not recalled he will be able to take it up. But, after this point, it will be no use


any doctor in the Service applying because no doctor in the Service will be in a position to say that he can take up an appointment. The result is that all these appointments will inevitably go to those who are in a position to undertake to take them. This is a disability which ought to be removed.
I have a letter here which deals with the situation from the point of view of the B.M.A.:
The provision of the new Bill, therefore, only adds to a situation considered unsatisfactory and one which has led to an acute shortage of doctors in the Army in particular. Staying for a further six months will jeopardise the professional career of many a new doctor and as the first line of compensation we feel that some gratuity ought to have been paid.
It seems to me to be a good deal better to deal with the matter by removing in this case the cause for compensation by excluding those who have an appointment as from the time that that appointment becomes available.
The next group are the students, and they are covered by the Amendment in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
(3G) This section shall not operate so as to prevent any person who has been allocated a place in any full-time educational course at a university, college or comparable institution in the United Kingdom, from taking up that place on the appropriate day.
Here again, it is quite wrong to put National Service men in such a position that they cannot obtain places at the universities during the six months for which they might be liable for recall under the Bill. It will throw out all the university arrangements and their personal arrangements. We say, therefore, that regard should be had to the relevant academic year for which a man has obtained a place. He probably obtained the place two years before, in the vast majority of cases, before he went into National Service. He then serves his two years of National Service, and he has the right to expect that he will be free then to take up his place. If that arrangement is to come suddenly to an end so that none of these men knows whether he will be able to take up his position, there will be the utmost confusion
Surely, as suggested by the Amendment, the correct thing to do is to say, "In these cases"—that is, of those who have obtained a place in this sort of in

stitution—"the period of additional service shall, be up to the beginning of the academic year". That period may be four months, five months, or whatever it is, but he should not be held after that time so that he can take up his appointment.
4.0 p.m.
The other two Amendments which are being discussed are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). They seek to put in a compendious form and to cover all the cases involving this principle instead of the particular cases which I have picked out. I do not know precisely to what extent that may or may not be workable, but I feel that we should have an assurance from the Minister that the principle which runs through these Amendments is accepted—perhaps not in the Bill, but administratively—so that men applying for this sort of job can produce something to the board which states, "Here is the Minister's undertaking. If I get this appointment, I shall be able to take it up".
Only with an assurance of that sort which can be produced to the board will we be able to put these men in the Services, whether they are selected for further service or not, on an equal footing to compete with others for the jobs and appointments which are necessary to the commencement of their careers. If that is not done, their careers will be put back, not only for the time that they are required in the Army, but for a very considerable time after they come out of the Army.

Mr. E. Shinwell: On a point of order. It may be a point of procedure, Sir William. We are operating under a guillotine Motion and, therefore, we are circumscribed in this debate. Would it not be advisable if, before the arguments on these Amendments are deployed, we had a response from the Secretary of State for War? It may be that he is ready to accept the proposition which has been made and to give the undertaking for which he has been asked. If so, we can dispose of these Amendments. If, on the other hand, he is not prepared to do that we shall know where we are and the debate can be organised in a more satisfactory fashion.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. I would only remind my right hon. Friend and you, Sir William, that we are discussing five Amendments, two of which are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo): I will watch the time very carefully. I am under some difficulty since the Opposition, perfectly justifiably on their part, did not feel able to accept the timetable Motion. I shall watch the position carefully to ensure that the division of these Amendments is done in such a way as to give me ample time to reply. If on any occasion I am, happily, able to accept in toto the whole thesis of a bundle of Amendments, I would not even wait for the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to speak; I would rise at once. I should like to hear a little more discussion of these Amendments, but I give an undertaking that I will watch the position most carefully to ensure that I have time to reply on all occasions.

Mr. Shinwell: These Amendments have not been thrown at the head of the Minister this afternoon. He has had ample opportunity to consider their purpose and content. Surely he must have decided by this time whether he is prepared to give the assurance for which he has been asked, or whether he proposes to reject the Amendments. It would be to the advantage of everyone if we could ascertain what his views are now.

Mr. Wigg: I do not dissent from the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). There is, however, a difference between us. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to express my regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) is not with us today, because I know that he shares my views in detail. I went to see him last Sunday afternoon. I found him in good spirits and much better. We fell to talking about the Amendments on the Notice Paper. The point which quickly emerged in our talk was that once an hon. Member on either side of the Committee seeks to amend the Bill and to make it work more fairly then he accepts the basic principle which motivates my hon. Friend the Member for

Coventry, East and myself, namely, that we are basing our actions on the principle of selective service.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, with that first-class mind of his, put the matter very fairly. He spotted the difference between us. He was dealing with particular cases and I was seeking to establish principles. He did it eloquently and said that my Amendments put the matter in a compendious form. It would be arrogant on my part to think that my Amendments met his point.
This is a selective service Bill. It differentiates between men and women, between the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force and between those 60,000 who were not called up in November, 1960. Some of these Amendments are designed to remedy injustices which may involve financial ruin or the ruin of a man's career at its beginning or which may alter the whole course of his life. As soon as we start to put the matter right, we bring ourselves face to face with selective service.
I have argued—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East will agree with this in every detail—that it is far more honest, far more competent and much better, in the interests of the Services, that the country should be brought face to face with the fact that in this modern world some form of selective service is absolutely essential if we are to have a defence policy which is worth twopence and which does not involve us in the expenditure of vast sums of money. The Americans were driven to this conclusion long ago.
Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, I have some cases too, but they work the other way round. I will quote them later, but let me mention just one now. It concerns a lad in my constituency whose father came to see me last weekend. He is a boy from a working-class home who, at great sacrifice, has passed the G.C.E. with five subjects at O level and has gone on to obtain his Higher National Certificate. His ambition is not to be Prime Minister, to sit on the Government Front Bench, but to run a power station. That is a legitimate ambition. His service was deferred for five years. He was not called up until he was 23. The Army, quite rightly, requires of its young men that


they shall serve in the defence of their country, but it is so "overflowing" with skilled men that it employs him as a lance corporal in the sergeants' mess to run the regimental tombola.
What happens when he comes out of the Army? He is married, but he has no home of his own. He has not a car. The alternative before him is to give up his career or do another couple of years of attendance at technical colleges in his spare time. The Army does not even want him in his technical capacity. It wants cooks and medical orderlies. These are the categories that the Army may want. It does not want power engineers, but the country does.
It is far better to look at this young man's qualifications and say that in the national interest he should be employed in civilian life completing his training, or that he is wanted in the Air Force or Navy and that his technical ability will be used. The country cannot afford to play ducks and drakes in this way because politicians do not have the "guts" to face the consequences of their own cowardice. That is what it amounts to and that is what we are faced with this afternoon.
In our earlier proceedings, when I moved the principle of selective service, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean), my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and one or two others, we did not get much change. We were told that selective service is not in accord with our British traditions. The alternative is, of course, to do the same thing in the unfairest possible way regardless of the consequences to individuals. We prefer this to telling our constituents that we have failed to face the issue of selective service, which we have had for years, and that in consequence we are now permanently tacking on to the country the same thing in the worst and most cowardly form.
I shall not dwell on this at length. I feel most strongly about it. The Army, unfortunately, is the victim of this system. It is no good for the Army or for the individual. I shall have no difficulty in going into the Lobby in support of these Amendments, but I hope that at least I have made it clear

that I see plainly what I am doing; and I hope that the Committee sees clearly what it is being asked to do.
The Secretary of State will have no difficulty in rejecting the Amendment, because it brings the Department face to face with the logic of what is happening or what the Government have failed to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) mentioned the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, which came out so advantageously on the afternoon that the House had risen for the Christmas Recess, in which is revealed what some of us knew all along, that the number of men that were wanted was 15,000. It was politically inconvenient to put that in the Bill. The Select Committee, composed mainly of hon. Members on the Government side, says in its Report, in extremely critical terms, exactly what it thinks of the Government and of their failure, once again, to tell the Committee the facts.
Again, I am entirely at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, whose constituent I am, that this Committee is being asked to continue with the proceedings on the Bill never having been given the facts and never at any stage, on Second Reading or subsequently, being told the strength of the reserve forces. Some of us know what they are, but hon. Members, on both sides, must put down Amendments and take part in the discussions without knowing the level of the reserve forces, what they are hoped to be or what they will run down to.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has reminded the Committee, we are working under a timetable. I will not detain the Committee. I support the Amendments. I only hope that the Committee will accept their logic.

4.15 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I preface what I propose to say on the Amendments by assuring the Committee that I have never doubted the genuine desire of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), in particular, and of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that we should have effective Armed Forces of the Crown. I do not dispute their motives. Having listened


to them today, however, it seems to me that the argument which they are employing is to some extent self-cancelling.
If the hon. Member for Dudley and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton are arguing, as, I think, they are and, I think, we all accept, that there are bound to be cases in which definite injustice results from the Bill, the various categories of people upon whom the Secretary of State can rely for drawing the necessary increases to the volunteer Regular Army should be made as wide as possible. The effect of all these Amendments is to extract from the field upon which the Secretary of State has to rely certain categories of people. That must result in the remaining categories who are not covered by the Amendments being drawn upon to a greater extent than otherwise would be the case. Certainly, there is a risk of that.
On Second Reading, we had from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the assurance that every case would be examined on its merits, that a careful machinery to study hardship would operate and, therefore, that the individual sense of injustice would, it was hoped, be reduced to the absolute minimum. I cannot see any result more clearly coming from the Amendments than that if they were passed certain categories who are not covered by them will have a greater sense of injustice than they otherwise would have had.

Mr. Paget: Surely that is not so. In a few instances, of course, the procedure would work to excuse a man for a few months from part of his call-up, which would probably have to be done by somebody else. The whole point of the Amendments, however, is to remove the uncertainty for everybody in these categories, so that people would be in a position to apply for the jobs. That applies to the whole lot.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: All of us are only too anxious that the uncertainty should be removed as soon as possible. No one group of people is more responsible for the uncertainty continuing as long as it has than hon. Members of the party opposite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For the way in which they

have behaved in forcing us into a guillotine procedure.

Mr. Shinwell: Nonsense.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am convinced that there was a far greater chance of everybody who was likely to be affected knowing a good deal earlier than will now be the case had the Opposition not decided to filibuster on the Bill to a certain extent.

Mr. Paget: Nonsense.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: That is my opinion and I am entitled to it. I certainly do not intend in any way to withdraw it.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. As that aspect has been introduced on the Clause, Sir William, I take it that it will be open to some of us to reply. The case against the Government in proposing the Guillotine on the Bill was never made on Thursday night. If, therefore, the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) says that it is not right, I for one would like the opportunity to prove to the hilt that the Guillotine was imposed not to guillotine us on this side, but to guillotine the Secretary of State for War.

The Chairman: The Committee should restrict itself to discussing the Amendment that is before us.

Mr. Wigg: I appreciate that the point probably ought not to have been made, but as it has now been made, I take it that it can be replied to.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Before you give your Ruling, Sir William, may I at least justify what I have said by recalling that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton emphatically raised the whole question of hardship. What I have said was relevant to that issue.

The Chairman: The Committee understands very well that we are working under a timetable and that we do not want to waste time unnecessarily.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I will not pursue that part of my argument further.
I turn now to the other and, perhaps, bigger question which underlies all the arguments against the Bill so far. I do not for a moment accept it, but let us


suppose that the charges made against the Government of responsibility in having allowed the present situation to develop can be sustained. In that event, I must ask hon. Members who are still opposed to the Bill one question. Do they believe that if the Government were now to accept the policy of selective National Service for new men rather than what they are proposing in the Bill we should be able to fill the gap which has to be filled to keep our forces up to strength in various spheres?
If they do not believe that selective National Cervice on a long-term basis would produce that result—and we all accept that something must be done to bridge the gap—and if they have no better suggestion than those they have put forward so far for bridging it, they are seeing several big trees but not seeing the wood at all. If they insist upon harping on the reason why this situation has arisen, they should tell the Committee how they would propose to meet it.
Every one of these Amendments would make it more difficult. We should impose greater hardship upon the men called upon to serve if we started extracting people out of the categories that the Secretary of State can call up. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will reject the Amendments. I believe that they are sincerely put forward in a genuine desire to avoid injustice arising, but in saving one category from injustice they are increasing the injustice to others. We know that some injustice is inevitable, and we hope to keep that injustice to the absolute minimum. But the Amendments would make it only all the more difficult for the Secretary of State to do what he wants to do to bridge the gap, and those remaining in the categories after the Amendments had been applied would suffer increased hardship.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) was kind enough to recognise our sincerity in tabling these Amendments, and for that we are grateful. But apparently he does not appreciate the intention behind the Amendments, which is to avoid any possibility of injustice and unfairness. Injustice is implicit in this proposed legislation and for that the

Opposition are in no way responsible. This is the legislation presented to the House of Commons by Her Majesty's Government through the medium of the Secretary of State for War.
I have been unable from the outset to ascertain why this legislation was thought to be necessary in the present situation. If the right hon. Gentleman had said to us, "We are now facing a crisis, an immediate emergency"—and I suppose that every emergency is immediate—and he had developed that theme and presented the facts, we would have understood him. It might well have been that the Opposition would have agreed, without debate, to accept the legislation in full. But a case has never been made out for this Measure. Nebulous, ambiguous statements have been made about the need for certain categories and certain numbers to be called up, and the impression has been created that one day there was going to be a crisis. I should have thought that the crisis would have been recognised before now. Indeed, the crisis, if it is such, has existed for many months.
The right hon. Gentleman did not ask for legislation of that character. We can have a crisis, prolonged and protracted and creating embarrassment and difficulties for all concerned, but nevertheless, it is not found necessary to take action until now. Presumably, it is not because of an impending crisis that the right hon. Gentleman wants this Measure. He wants to provide far filling certain gaps in categories in units in the forces. If that is all he wants, would the right hon. Gentleman be explicit and tell us why, and what kind of men he wants, what categories, and the actual purposes for which they are required? Does he want doctors, medical orderlies, catering staff, or batmen? Does he want men who cater for the needs of officers in various messes here and in Germany? We are entitled to have same information on these things.
I want to make clear beyond any possibility of doubt—and here I am speaking personally—that I want to see a standing Army that is effective and compact and capable of giving a good account of itself if circumstances require it to do so. But it seems to me that this method of building an effective


Army is quite unnecessary. It has never yet been demonstrated that the number of men which the right hon. Gentleman has told us are required to reach the target of 165,000 or maybe 182,000 could not be obtained. We have never had any information on that head. Indeed, optimistic statements have been made from the benches opposite that the target could be reached. I hope that it is so.
I am not one of those who wish to abandon our defences. I am sceptical about the nuclear deterrent, because circumstances justify taking that line. The evidence disproves the need for a nuclear deterrent which, in effect, is not a deterrent at all, but the Navy, Army and Air Force—

The Chairman: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will try to restrict himself a little more closely to the Amendments.

Mr. Shinwell: With respect, Sir William, I thought that I was leading up to the point. After all, it is the whole purpose of the discussion to prove to the Committee and the country that the Army needs supporting units and ancillary enforcements, and therefore, men have to be retained for a longer period than it was thought necessary.
That is the whole purpose of the legislation and that is what the debate is about. The question arises whether the Bill can be operated with fairness and justice to all concerned, and that is why I asked earlier whether the Secretary of State would give us the undertaking for which he was asked. I could not see why the right hon. Gentleman could not have risen at that point, with all the information in his possession.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely said that if the Amendments were accepted they would narrow the field of selection. If we excluded the doctors, the students, those who have jobs or who are hoping to have jobs in local government and the like, we would narrow the selection and this would be even more unfair and unjust. But that is not our responsibility. The legislation is doing that in any event. As to whether this is selective service or not, in my judgment it embodies the principle of selective service. Whether

that is right or wrong, the question for us now is whether it will be operated as fairly and justly as is practicable in the circumstances.
4.30 p.m.
As I view it, if somebody has the expectation of an appointment with a local authority, or, being a graduate in a medical school, hopes to obtain an appointment as a registrar in a medical institution, or, being a student, is going through a course of study and hopes to take an examination in the expectation of an appointment, surely we are justified in asking, in respect of him and others in those categories, that they should be left out of consideration in this legislation. But the legislation does not do so—unless the right hon. Gentleman gives the undertaking for which we ask.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that in the administration of this scheme he will exercise great judgment and caution in order to obviate unfairness? Will he give a firm undertaking to that effect and say, "I will come to the House from time to time and tell hon. Members what I am doing to ensure that there is no question of unfairness "? Unless he does that, there will be considerable uncertainty, and uncertainty means unfairness and injustice, particularly to those who hope to obtain appointments of the kind which have been mentioned.
Personally, I want to see the Army built up. In my judgment, for what it is worth, the Government have all the men they need. I hope that this is not entirely out of order, although it may be on the fringe of order, but if there is to be a difficulty about manpower there is a way out. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely asked us whether we had any alternative. He asked whether we wanted complete conscription or a complete selective service. As far as I am concerned, I want neither. There is an alternative.
In a supplementary question which I put to the Prime Minister the other day, I pointed out that we were paying £70 million a year to maintain troops in Germany and that this was more money than the nation could afford. If we were not spending £70 million for that purpose, we might be able to get on to an even keel in this country, or, at any rate,


we might be approaching it. It does not look as though there will be a satisfactory settlement with Germany—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): Order. This is beyond the fringe.

Mr. Shinwell: I thought that I was perhaps going over the fringe of order, and I do not want to digress.
However, there is a solution to the problem. Instead of having that great mass of men on the Continent, and adding to them—for that is the proposition—we should bring them back. If we are not to get the money for them, let us bring them back to this country, and then we shall not need this legislation. If they were brought back to this country and trouble then occurred—the right hon. Gentleman speaks about an emergency and a possible crisis—they could be transported to where they would be of some value.
That is the alternative, but in the meantime let the right hon. Gentleman give us a firm and explicit undertaking that he will adopt measures to avoid any possibility of injustice, and let him tell us what those measures will be. That is what we ask.

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) deployed with some power the very respectable argument about selective service which he has deployed before, and the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) made far-reaching and very interesting suggestions—and I do not dissent too far from some of the things which he said. But I very much doubt whether any of those propositions could be brought into the Bill by these Amendments.
I apprehend that the effect of the Amendments would be to exclude from the Armed Forces for the time that this service is projected a number of the sort of people that the Army most wants so that it can fulfil its commitments in the best possible way. They would exclude everybody who has applied for a post in the Civil Service or in a local authority, doctors in certain categories, students and, by the last of the group of Amendments, everybody who has enlisted in a course of three years or more. These are the skilled people of the country, and, of course, they are entitled to con-

sideration by the very fact that they have taken the trouble to became skilled and that they have used their brains to enable themselves to get into these categories. But I very much doubt whether it is democratic or fair to exclude them on those grounds alone from the incidence of service which will fall upon other categories of people.
In passing, I think that the smug conceit of the young doctor who wrote to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) does not commend him at least for the way in which he thinks that he should do his service.
To seek in this way to avoid injustice to a few of the more highly qualified people, Who are better able than others to look after themselves after they leave the Forces—those who are in a position to walk into a job without any difficulty after they have completed their service—is not fair and not democratic and would be in the interests neither of the Army nor of the country. The Army does not need only those men who have no qualifications which can be written down on paper. Those are not the only men who ought to go into the Army. These Amendments, although they may fall into the general project of selective service, or something rather different, which have been put forward, would be anti-democratic and unfair and would cause the Bill to work less well than would be the case without them. I hope that the Committee will reject them.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member made the wounding charge that our Amendments are collectively unfair. Does he not know what the Secretary of State has done? He has 50,000 men, and by a stroke of the pen he has chopped off 25,000 of them by the use of a certain date. Apparently that is fair, but our attempts to sort out the other 25,000 are regarded as unfair. Is the hon. Member making that argument in order to wound us, or has he thought about the question properly?

Mr. Kershaw: I am not producing the argument to wound the hon. Member. I thought that it was quite fair. If we are to exclude men who, within a certain time, have made an application to join a local authority, and not to exclude others Who do not fall into some quite


arbitrary category fixed by the Amendments, then we shall be even more unfair in the incidence of duty which is demanded of the ordinary person.

Dr. Alan Thompson: I should like to address myself briefly to the Amendment which relates to doctors, not because I think that other categories are less important but because I think that this merits some discussion at this point.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) dealt with some of the reasons why, from the point of view of their own careers, doctors should not be brought so widely within the terms a the Bill. I should like to deal with the other aspect—the very good reasons why, at this stage, the community should not be deprived for a day longer than is necessary of the services of doctors. This must be borne in mind.
If we look at the state of our hospital services we find that our teaching hospitals are becoming more and more dependent on Pakistani and Indian doctors. I am not criticising these doctors, Who do a fine job. There is a hospital not far from my constituency in which three-quarters of the medical staff are Pakistani and Indian. I hope that it is realised that the recruitment of these doctors depends entirely on the absence of post-graduate facilities in Pakistan and India, and that as soon as they have their own post-graduate courses our Health Service will face a great crisis. It is important to let our own local doctors get back into general practice and into the hospitals as quickly as possible.
Another aspect of the crisis is that during the past twenty years the country's population has risen by 10 per cent., but the proportion of doctors has risen only by one-third of that increase. In the arts faculties, the number of university students applying for arts degrees has risen by 70 per cent., the number of science students by 183 per cent., while the number of medical students has risen by only 7 per cent.
It takes seven years to make a doctor. Our aim at the moment is to train doctors and to get them out as quickly as possible to do the job where they are

most needed. We are providing, it is true, since the Willink Report, for an extra 180 a year, but we really need an extra 2,000 a year. It would be out of order to refer to what we could do with more training and by opening more university places, but within the terms of this Amendment we can do something to ensure a flow of doctors quickly back to civilian life.
This matter is becoming even more urgent since, under the Health Service, retirement pensions are available for doctors and fewer general practitioners are staying on after retiring age. This problem thus concerns not only the hospitals, but also the general practitioner service. For all these urgent needs of the community, we should get doctors back to the hospitals and to general practice as soon as we can. I dissent from what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton said to some extent. I know that he was only quoting a letter which said that there is little worth while for a doctor to do in the Army, but I think that his young medical constituent was putting the point a little strongly.

Mr. Paget: He said that the Army had the reputation of teaching bad surgical habits.

Dr. Thompson: I shall not now discuss different branches of surgery and medicine. If we have soldiers, they have to be looked after medically. My complaint is not on that ground. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend's correspondent has a point in that it is more worth while to a doctor's career to get back into the mainstream of major hospital teaching, with the climate of research where new advances are being made and where his manual and personal dexterity is being more practised over a wide range of cases. In addition, not the least important point from the promotion angle is that he gets into the social swim again. I accept my hon. and learned Friend's correspondent's view about that, but not about the wider conclusions about how useless doctors are in the Army.
I know that we do not want to plead for privileged cases, but the health needs of our community are so pressing at every level that I hope that the Minister will consider the case of doctors sympathetically.

Mr. Ede: I want to be as brief as possible and to deal only with the points raised by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), because I know that ordinarily he brings to this kind of question a quite dispassionate and logical consideration. We were originally told that the Bill was necessary to deal with a crisis. Whether the crisis has developed, whether it is developing, or whether it has vanished I am not sure, but I am sure that while the Treasury Bench is occupied by the persons who at present sit there we shall have a continuous series of crises.
There is another contest in which we are engaged—the economic and industrial test, for which we are as ill-equipped as we are for any military crisis. The kind of people whom my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) wishes to exempt are the people who are most important to the long-term decisions in that context. We are dealing with National Service. When the House gave a Second Reading to the Bill it adopted the introduction of selective service and in Committee we must respect that decision.
I say to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely that he seems to have the officer's mind on this matter. All he wants is bodies—as many as he can get. Once he has got them, he says to the orderly sergeant, "Let me have so many men." I belonged to an Army even before the hon. Gentleman did.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: rose—

Mr. Ede: I will give way in a moment. It does not matter whether it is to play the piano or to move it from the wet canteen to somewhere else, he has to find the men.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I had to do the moving.

Mr. Ede: So did I. A small nation like ours cannot afford to proceed on those lines with the use of such material as we have.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: It is precisely because I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that we ought to have willing men who want to stay in the Army that, at the time when the Government of which he was a member introduced

peacetime conscription, I expressed regret but felt it was necessary and hoped that it would end as soon as possible. That is still one of the reasons why I am against selective National Service for new men. I made the distinction in my speech between calling up new men for the first time and keeping in those who have already been called up.

Mr. Ede: The House, on Second Reading, has already decided the general framework of the Bill and I have to accept that decision and do the best I can with it in Committee. I suggest that the line on which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley proceeded would enable the nation as a whole to get the best use of those men who come within the category of the Bill, and I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us, whether he accepts the Amendment or not, that he will see that we do not retain a man of the type mentioned by my hon. Friend merely to run "Housey-housey" in the sergeants' mess. That sort of thing indicates what I have just said. Perhaps there is a piano in the way and the attitude is, "Here is a man—let him go and do the job."
I do not think that the nation as a whole, not merely the Army, can afford selective service that is based on picking the three men on the right and making them step forward two paces, to be told that they can move the piano.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I am supporting these Amendments because I believe that conscription is unfair for anyone in peace time and that to give them an extra six months' service is doubly so. But I must say that, if it is a hardship to prevent men from following the jobs listed in these Amendments, it is an even greater hardship to call up for an extra six months men who are married, who have young children, whose wives are pregnant, or who are the sons of widowed mothers. I know that I cannot deal with such cases because Amendments dealing with them have not been called, and I am not, of course, challenging your Ruling, Sir William.

Mr. Shinwell: They have been called, but are not to be voted upon.

Mr. Allaun: Yes. But what happens when we return to our constituents and


tell them how we have voted on these matters? It is my emphatic view that these should be automatic reasons for discharge from National Service, never mind calling men up for an extra six months.
I support the exclusions mentioned in this batch of Amendments because I want as many as possible to be kept out of the conscription classes. It is very good that doctors, students, Government and local government employees should not have to serve an extra six months, but I cannot overlook the fact that many young people in my constituency, as in most constituencies, are engineering apprentices, and so on. They have to study and they go to colleges like the Salford Technical College. It is very difficult for them to have to break off their studies and then try to begin them again. The last batch to be called up are also to be subjected to this double call-up. There are many men who have completed their apprenticeships before going into the Services. They are 23 years of age, earning a man's wage and with a wife and children, and much more likely to be in that position than younger men.
If the men we wish to exclude were doing an important and worth-while job in the Army, there would be some argument on the Government side, but in long discussions with National Service men in my constituency I have found, as other hon. Members will have done in their constituencies, that their one complaint is that their service is a complete waste of time. I know that the Minister will not agree, but that is the reaction of the overwhelming majority of National Service men. It has been a complete waste of two years of their lives and now it is to be a complete waste of two and a half years of their lives. They resent it and I do not blame them.
One of the classes mentioned in the Amendments is those who enter local government service. In the great cities of the North the outstanding tragedy is lack of housing. The housing problem cannot be solved without plenty of trained, skilled men in the town hall, men able to plan the demolition of slums and the building of new houses. I assure the Committee that these services are

in great difficulty because of staffing problems, and that the extra six months of National Service will add to those difficulties.
No doubt the Secretary of State will tell us that there is a shortage of doctors in the forces. I can appreciate that, but he must not overlook the far more serious shortage of doctors in the general community. I have previously referred to the attitude of the B.M.A. on this matter. It has very strong views and I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has anything to say about them. If we cannot meet our commitments with 410,000 men, we should cut our commitments.

Mr. Profumo: I start by joining the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in saying how much I regret that the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) is not able to be here. He has taken a great deal of trouble about this matter and many of the Amendments are in his name. I would like to think that he will be returning before we conclude all the stages of the Bill, but it would be against my responsibility to continue our consideration of the Bill for any longer than is necessary and I hope that he will have a little recuperation.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked me for an undertaking in view of what the hon. Member for Dudley said about somebody in charge of the sergeants' mess and running Bingo.

Mr. Wigg: Tombola.

Mr. Profumo: Housey-housey.

Mr. Wigg: Tombola.

Mr. Profumo: It is one of those things.
I have already given the undertaking that I will see that we retain men under Clause 1 only when we need them for strictly military purposes. If the Service man in question is retained, he will not be retained unless it is necessary on military grounds. I felt that I ought to say that because the right hon. Member for South Shields was on a perfectly good point and I do not want the Committee to be under any misapprehension.

Mr. Wigg: I have already given the right hon. Gentleman's Department the name of the soldier. Can I take it that he will be released on the due date?

Mr. Profumo: No. If the hon. Member followed what I was saying—and I am sure that he did—what I was saying was that if he was retained it would be for strictly military purposes. He will not be retained to do anything frivolous. This is a major matter upon which the Committee has a right to have the position reiterated.
The effect of the Amendments would be to exempt from liability to retention under Clause 1 men who have, in various ways, made definite commitments for their employment after release, as well as students who have obtained places at educational establishments. I have already outlined the general objections to including exemptions of this kind in a Bill of this sort. The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) put his finger on the difficulty, as he so often does. Once we begin to exclude people by categories, however strong a category may be, it becomes never ending. He made a case for many different categories and I have no doubt that other hon. Members could think of many more.
I am sure that the right way and the only way to deal with the problem is to deal with the cases generally by the administrative arrangements which I propose to apply for consideration of individual compassionate and hardship circumstances. I do not want to detain the Committee longer than I need, but it is my responsibility to reiterate and possibly to enlarge upon how I propose to go about this and to see how far I can meet the genuine feelings of the Committee on this subject. Perhaps I should give some account of how these arrangements will work and how the Advisory Committee which I am setting up will bear upon this.
I include under the compassionate heading those cases which affect a man's dependants, very often because of ill-health. Personal hardship concerns the soldier as an individual, for instance, his family business. There is already a working system for release on compassionate grounds. Release can be authorised where, for instance, domestic distress cannot be alleviated within a reasonable period of compassionate leave.
I am now proposing to go further in considering both these compassionate

cases and hardship cases. From now onwards we will consider the cases of men who, in anticipation of normal release, have in good faith entered into undertakings which would be seriously prejudiced by extra service. This would include commitments of a business, professional, educational and financial nature, all the sort of cases which hon. Members have in mind.
If a compassionate or hardship case is perfectly straightforward, it will be considered, as up to now, by the branch of my Department concerned—and a very experienced branch it is; it has been doing this throughout the period of National Service—and it will be dealt with immediately. Less straightforward cases will be referred to the Advisory Committee to which I referred during the Second Reading debate and of which, as I have told hon. Members, Sir Reginald Denning has agreed to be Chairman.
I am now able to announce the other members who have agreed to serve on this Committee. They are Mr. E. R. Tucker, Headmaster of the Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe; he will be able to advise on matters bearing on education, in which he has a very long and notable experience; Mr. T. H. Hodgson, until recently the National Officer of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and who is the representative of the Trades Union Congress and who will advise on cases in the industrial field—or help to advise, because they will all work together; Mr. A. L. Trundle, Chairman of the Board of the United Phosphate and Malt Co. Ltd., and who has had a long experience of industrial relations; he is a member of the Employers' Panel of the Industrial Court and of the Chancellor's Panel of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, and from 1941 to 1948 he was the personnel manager of N.A.A.F.I. I am grateful to these gentlemen for their willingness to undertake an arduous task. Together with the Chairman, they will advise me on the more difficult cases.
5.0 p.m.
As guidance to this Advisory Committee, I am going to ask the members to take into account the principles which are part of the regulations on hardship


drawn up under the National Service Act 1948. So far these have worked very satisfactorily. They are published as Statutory Instrument, 1948, No. 2683, as amended by Statutory Instrument, 1957, No. 180. No doubt hon. Members are familiar with these Statutory Instruments, but if they are not they can be looked at.
I hope that we shall be able to go considerably beyond these terms of reference. As the Advisory Committee will be advising me, I want to give it as much scope as I can, and the grounds accepted for release will be wider and more flexible than was possible under the National Service Act.

Mr. Frank Allaun: That is an important announcement. Can the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether he is referring merely to people who have businesses, one-man firms, and so on? Will this Committee deal with new jobs, or new categories? Does "hardship" include the widowed mother and the married people to whom I was referring?

Mr. Profumo: I tried to point out earlier, and on Second Reading, that hardship and compassionate cases will, as hitherto, come to my Department. Perhaps I can go further. I am not trying to pin responsibility on any member of the Committee, but, because of the delay, it looked as though it would be difficult for me to give the two months' notice which I promised I would give to the first people who might have to be kept on under this Bill. I have, therefore, made arrangements whereby a warning order has now gone out, and will, I hope, either today or tomorrow reach each member of the Armed Forces who is liable to be retained under this Clause telling him that he can now appeal on hardship grounds. Perhaps at a later stage I might be allowed to say more about this.
These cases will still come to my Department. If they are simple hardship or compassionate cases, they will be granted or rejected. If they are difficult cases, they will be sent to the Committee, the members of which I have announced. They will be considered by the Committee, and I shall be advised of the Committee's decision. All the hardship and compassionate cases which I have outlined will be covered, and if

the hon. Gentleman looks at the Statutory Instruments to which I have referred he will see how this will work.
I was saying that I hope to go a little further.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order, Mr. Hynd. If the Committee is not careful, we shall get into difficulty. I thought that when we reached the Amendment in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
(3H) Any notice served under subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall be accompanied by a statement informing the recipient that he has a right to appeal on the grounds that the effect of the notice will be to inflict unusual hardship either upon him or his dependants and that in the event of his wishing so to appeal he should communicate the grounds of his appeal to his commanding officer forthwith.
we would, at that stage, discuss the advisory machinery.
If we pass from the group of Amendments now under discussion, it will be out of order to refer to the discussion which has taken place on them when we reach the Amendment to which I have just referred.

The Temporary Chairman: I have been considering this point. Before the right hon. Gentleman was interrupted, I thought I heard him say that he was going on to deal with the categories mentioned in this group of Amendments. I took it that he was leading up to saying that they were to be included within the scope of the Advisory Committee, and in that respect I thought that he was in order. It is true that the general question of compassionate cases belongs to the next series of Amendments.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Hynd, that does not meet the point. The Chair is also bound by the rules of order. If, having listened to the right hon. Gentleman, we pass from this group of Amendments, we shall be precluded from referring in detail to the Advisory Committee mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. We had one announcement about General Denning on 19th December. We have now had another announcement, and later we shall deal with the appeal machinery.
I suggest, Mr. Hynd, that you allow this discussion to continue to stray over into the Amendment to which I referred


earlier, and then later it and the Amendment in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
(3B) Any person who receives a notice under subsections (1) or (2) of this section may appeal in writing against his retention, such appeal to be considered and determined by the Army Council or any officer not below the rank of major-general deputed by them.
can be taken formally. We could have a further discussion now on the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman.

The Temporary Chairman: I think that it would be more convenient if the Committee disposed first of this series of Amendments. I assure the hon. Member that he will not be out of order on the next group of Amendments in referring to the general question of compassionate cases.

Mr. Profumo: I apologise if I am not doing what the Committee wants, but it seems to me that the whole argument on this group of Amendments depends on the fact that these cases cannot be dealt with except in a general way. I was not able to announce the other members of the Committee earlier, because it is not easy to find responsible people who are prepared to give up their time, which they must do to do the job properly.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many warning notices have been sent out?

Mr. Profumo: Warning notices have been sent out only in respect of those groups which would be due to leave their full-time National Service on or about 1st April. If the notices were not sent out now, it would not be possible to give two months' warning. I want the men concerned to have two months in which to put their cases to the Advisory Committee.
The first two groups have been given notice, but these are only warning notices. The statutory notices will be sent out when the Bill becomes law. The men concerned will be allowed to appeal on any of the grounds put forward by hon. Gentlemen. The appeals will come before the Committee, and be considered there.

Mr. Bellenger: Have warning notices been sent to all the men in the two groups?

Mr. Profumo: I have sent warning notices to all those members of the two groups whom I will have to keep if the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Bellenger: How many men have been sent notices?

Mr. Profumo: I cannot say how many notices have been sent. Warning notices have been sent to all those whom I would have to keep. I am not sure whether I can get the information required by the right hon. Gentleman, but every man in those two groups who will have to be kept will receive a warning notice in time to appeal. Surely this commends itself to hon. Members.

Mr. Wigg: Why two groups?

Mr. Profumo: National Service works in this way. Men are discharged by groups, in the same way as they are called up by groups. The first group is due out on 2nd April and the second group on 4th April, or something like that. Notices have been sent to the men concerned because of the undertaking that I gave the House that they would receive two months' notice.

Mr. Wigg: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the number of men in each of these two groups, and the total number? If he can then tell us how many warning notices have been sent to these two groups, we shall know what proportion of men have received the notices.

Mr. Profumo: I doubt whether the proportion is all that germane, but warning notices have been sent to about 2,000 men. It does not mean that there will be 2,000 men in every group.

Mr. Albert Evans: The right hon. Gentleman said that he had sent warning notices to men in these two groups.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The point is not germane to this group of Amendments. There will be opportunity later to discuss the general question. At the moment we are discussing a group of Amendments which deal with certain specified categories.

Mr. A. Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving notice to the men who are not to be retained so that they will be free from anxiety?

Mr. Profumo: No. I have not done this. Perhaps the hon. Member has not been able to attend all our early debates, or, if he has, he may have overlooked the point. It is some time ago now. I have already explained in Committee that after 1st April everybody in B.A.O.R. will have to regard himself as being held. This applies only to B.A.O.R. personnel. People in other theatres in early release groups will not have to be retained. I have warned provisionally everybody in the first two groups, in B.A.O.R. who is going to be retained. I hope that that is clear enough.

Sir Douglas Glover: If the people in B.A.O.R.—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope that this point will not be pursued on this series of Amendments. It will be in order to discuss it on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill", but it is not in order at the moment.

Mr. Profumo: I now wish to mention some of the objections I have found to the individual Amendments. There seems to me to be no reason why men who have found civilian employment with Her Majesty's Government or with local authorities should be exempt while people who intend to work for private firms or in other categories should not be exempt. I appreciate the need for people in local government, but I should think that government should take a back seat in these problems. Therefore, I cannot see that it would be right for us to allow these categories to be exempted.
I now come to the question of doctors. First, I must take up the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) when he read out, quite fairly, a letter telling the Committee what doctors felt. In part of the letter which he read out, which I presume came from a fairly young doctor, there was a reference to bad surgical habits being easily picked up in the Army. I must wholeheartedly repudiate any suggestion that bad surgical habits are easily picked up in the Army. This would be a monstrous thing to get out

from the point of view of the Royal Army Medical Corps—one category in which we are very short of men—and we are doing everything we can to build up the reputation of this Corps. What this doctor says is irresponsible and is simply not correct.
I accept the idea behind the reading out of this letter by the hon. and learned Member, but these things are apt to get out of the Committee and to create quite the wrong impression. The integrity of the Royal Army Medical Corps is something that I cannot allow to suffer. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to make that point.
I realise that there is a considerable shortage of doctors in civil life, but so there is in the Army, and I am concerned with seeing that people are kept in the Army for this period if they are necessarily needed on military grounds. I cannot keep men back without keeping back enough doctors to look after them. I must see that the strength of B.A.O.R. does not fall below an acceptable level during 1962, and with that there is an obligation to keep enough doctors to look after the men. If it is militarily necessary to hold back some doctors I must do so. It would be wrong for me to leave the Committee in any other frame of mind. If I did not take this action the scheme would fail.
Considerable anxiety has been expressed by hon. Members about the effect of Clause 1 on National Service doctors and dentists. I do not know whether it will help the Committee if I try to put the matter in perspective by quoting numbers. The number of people affected will not be large. The number of doctors brought within the scope of Clause 1 is about 180. This is the number who will be serving on 31st March of this year. Of these I calculate that I shall need to keep back about 36, and the inquiries that I have made suggest that only a very small percentage of that 36 have already made definite arrangements to take up civilian jobs. As I have said, this factor will be taken into account if any appeal is made in this sphere.
I now turn to the position of National Service dentists—and they are very important, although nobody has mentioned them today. About 28 will be serving, world-wide, on 31st March, and


of these I shall probably need to retain only about four. These numbers are based on the assurance that I have already given to the House during the Second Reading debate that no more National Service men will be retained than is absolutely essential. I could not accept that doctors or dentists have a better case for exemption than persons in other professions or occupations, and the hardship claims of members of the medical profession will be given the same consideration as is proposed in the case of other retained National Service men.
I have already given an assurance about students, by way of a Written Answer on 6th November last year, when I made it clear that every consideration would be given to claims by National Service men and officers who had made arrangements to start or resume studies at universities and other higher educational institutions that they would not be retained in the Army beyond the date of their proposed commencement of studies. I am sure that this is the way to deal with such cases. As for professional men and tradesmen who have undergone lengthy training, amongst the men who will be liable to be retained under the Bill are many whose call-up for National Service has already been deferred in order that they could do their training first. I do not think that we can exempt men on the ground that they have undergone lengthy training when National Service has already been deferred to enable them to do that training.
In short, I feel unable to grant statutory exemption, but the arrangements for individual consideration which I have described will meet most, if not all, the points that have been made and in some cases will go further in the interests of the men concerned. I hope that, in the words of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), they will operate as fairly as is practicable in the circumstances.
In view of what I have said, I hope that the Committee will not press the Amendment to a Division.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I am not entirely clear about the undertaking which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman, but

I shall return to that point in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman asked why people going into the public service ought to be treated differently from those going into private employment. The answer is that the public service method of recruitment is necessarily much longer. There is the system of the long list and then the short list, and then the interview by the committees, so that if a person is going into the public service the process of getting there takes him a number of months, which is not usual in the case of a person going into private service. That was the reason why I thought they should be treated differently. I thought it was a matter of some importance.
As for doctors, I am sorry if the letter that I quoted is to be regarded as a libel. I had already sent this letter to the Minister, and he replied in these terms:
I know that the scope of medical practice in the Armed Forces is not as wide as it is in civil life—the population is young and relatively fit. Moreover, a reserve of staff has to be readily available for military operations and this is something of a handicap…
That seemed to me—

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden): Read on.

Mr. Paget: Very well.
Every man called up to do National Service has, to some degree, had his career interrupted.
Does the hon. Member wish me to read any further?

Mr. Ramsden: No.

Mr. Paget: I am afraid that I took it as a matter of common sense that work in the circumstances of Army operations inevitably meant that it was not possible to maintain the standards which are maintained at large hospitals. This is not an attack on the Army; it is a matter of fact and, I would have thought, of common sense. As for students, I understand that what I have asked for is fully accepted.
I do not write very quickly, but I tried to write down the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking. I understand that he himself—because, whoever advises him, the responsibility is his—undertakes to consider cases of men who, in anticipation of normal release, have entered into commitments


in good faith. Does that mean that men who have applied for posts in the public service and local government and have been short-listed can say to the people from whom they are seeking a job, "If you give me this job I shall be available because, having applied, if I am offered it before my recall that will be a commitment which I shall have entered into and which comes within the Minister's undertaking"?

Mr. Profumo: It does not mean anything more than I have said. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will read what I have said. These cases will be considered. My undertaking does not entitle a man to say, "If you give me this job I can give you an undertaking that I can accept it". It goes no further than I have said. It is in the realm of all the undertakings I have given, namely, that all these cases will be considered on their merits.

Mr. Paget: That surely refuses us the very thing we are asking for. This does not concern merely the men whom we want to retain it concerns far more the men we do not want to retain. It means that every one of these men is disqualified from obtaining appointments for a period of probably six months after he leaves the Army. It means that in respect of the whole lot of them, particularly the ones we do not want, we shall be imposing not six months unemployment, because they will probably get some sort of employment, but six months additional hiatus before they can get on with their careers.
So far as I understand it, the undertaking which the Minister has now given does not touch on that point. We shall have these unfortunate men precisely in this position. From the very nature of their career there has to be an application and arrangements made about six months before they take up the appointment. They are normally taken up during the period of service. Now they can no longer be so taken up. There is no undertaking to cover that. I am sorry, therefore, in view of what the Minister's undertaking amounts to, that I cannot withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: You were kind enough, Mr. Hynd, to say that we could discuss the procedure Which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with extensively in his reply on the Motion, "That the Clause

stand part." It was kind of you to make this offer, but I would prefer to discuss it now.

The Temporary Chairman: No, I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I said that this could be discussed on the next group of Amendments, if it was in regard to compassionate cases.

Mr. Wigg: I am not dealing with compassionate cases. I am dealing with the full machinery, because it may deal with any kind of case. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee earlier of the appointment of Lieut.-General Sir Reginald Denning and a number of other people, and it may be that a number of my hon. Friends may be deceived into applauding what may seem to be this liberal action. It is nothing of the kind. It is a major act of passing the buck.

Mr. Profumo: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wigg: The Secretary of State shakes his head. A number of my hon. Friends had put on the Order Paper, out of the warmness of their hearts, proposals to write into the Bill statutory provisions which would give the soldier a right of appeal. I would have objected to that proposal because the Secretary of State, although sometimes he seems unaware of it, is the head of a disciplined force, and the power of discipline must not be got round, even in such a matter as this.
Decisions have to rest fairly and squarely on the shoulders of those who have the power to make decisions. The only person who can make this decision is the Secretary of State for War. He introduced this Measure. He knows perfectly well that when the notices go out there will be a howl. I am sure that hon. Members who are not present today to give us the benefit of their experience of Army matters will be putting down notices on the Order Paper and writing to the Secretary of State, particularly those who had narrow majorities in the last election. They are going to howl. The right hon. Gentleman wants an alibi. He refers first to the appointment of Lieut.-General Sir Reginald Denning. I applaud his public spirit, although I do not know him, and I applaud the public spirit of all those who will serve on this Committee. Who is Lieut.-General Sir Reginald Denning? He is the head


of the S.S.A.F.A. What is the machinery that makes the inquiry? Who is it who will knock on the doors in Stake-on-Trent or Dudley? So we are going to have General Denning to sit in judgment on the facts which he is giving to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will kindly put "Passed to you, please", and push it back to the Committee again. This is a masterly piece of dodging the column. I have no doubt whatever that some hon. Members will be deceived by this, but I will tell the Secretary of State where the deception will not last too long—that is in the barrack room. The soldiers will know about this. They will know how many beans make five, even if the Army Council does not.
To take it one stage further—and here I think the right hon. Gentleman must have listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend who at one time was at the Ministry of Labour—my right hon. Friend made a speech on Second Reading giving the parallel of the Ministry of Labour's handling in these cases. But there is a world of difference between a man before and after he goes into the Armed Forces. Before he goes in he is a civilian with all the rights of appeal which the House of Commons wrote into the National Service Acts. At every stage he has a statutory right of appeal to the tribunal and, ultimately, if it concerns a matter of great principle to the umpire, and the decision of the tribunal or of the umpire is mandatory on the Government. It is not a Government court; it is part of our cherished tradition and has complete independence. Now the Secretary of State in order to give himself a second alibi takes out bits of the National Service Act and writes them into this Charter. It is flummery, absolute flummery. Of course these facts ought to be investigated, but the responsibility for holding these chaps in the Army is that of the Government and they should take the decision on the basis of—

Mr. Profumo: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is being less than fair if he believes what he is saying. If he knows of a better way I

should like to hear of it. I think this is the fairest way possible, and the reason why I am doing it this way is because I realise that the responsibility must and can only be mine. The members of this Committee are drawn from the widest sections—the trade unions, management, education and S.S.A.F.A.—and if the hon. Gentleman can think of a better and wider body of persons, I should like him to say so. They can only advise me, and it must be for me to take the final decisions. This is one of the reasons why I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: I cannot do better than the Secretary of State, but even if we added a galaxy of angels to the Committee all it would do would be to strengthen my case. It is the Secretary of State's responsibility. Why does he want to pass the buck? Why does he want advice about it? It is a reflection on highly competent civil servants because the civil servants who advise him will be serving on the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is erecting a piece of machinery and although ostensibly he is doing it in order to be fair, in fact he is erecting an alibi. This is an alibi for the Minister when the answers come to be drafted. The answer will be, "This is a very difficult case." He could almost have the answers cyclostyled or printed in advance. He will say that he referred the case to the Advisory Committee and that he had to accept its advice. That is precisely what will happen and what is intended to happen. I do not mind if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that is a good thing to do; all I tell him is that I do not think that it will deceive the troops. Of course it is not intended to deceive them, but they will know perfectly well that this is the same old firm under another name, but as long as we are quite clear what we are proceeding to do, I have no objection.

Question put, That those words be there added.

The Committee divided: Ayes 190, Noes 269.

Division No. 53.]
AYES
[5.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bence, Cyril


Ainsley, William
Awbery, Stan
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Albu, Austen
Beaney, Alan
Benson, Sir George


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Blackburn, F.




Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Boardman, H.
Holt, Arthur
Prentice, R. E.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hoy, James H.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Probert, Arthur


Bowies, Frank
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, Harry


Boyden, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hunter, A. E.
Reynolds, G. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Callaghan, James
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Cliffe, Michael
Jeger, George
Ross, William


Collick, Percy
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Edward


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
King, Dr. Horace
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Deer, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, Julian


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (west Ham, N.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Diamond, John
Lipton, Marcus
Spriggs, Leslie


Dodds, Norman
Loughlin, Charles
Steele, Thomas


Donnelly, Desmond
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Driberg, Tom
McCann, John
Storehouse, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
MacColl, James
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McInnes, James
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Vauxhall)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Bamett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Evans, Albert
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Swain, Thomas


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, Frank
Swingler, Stephen


Finch, Harold
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Symonds, J. B.


Fitch, Alan
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Forman, J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Thornton, Ernest


Gaitskeil, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Manuel, A. C.
Timmons, John


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mapp, Charles
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Carmrthn)
Marsh, Richard
Wade, Donald


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Roy
Wainwright, Edwin


Gordon walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Warbey, William


Gourlay, Harry
Mendelson, J. J.
Watkins, Tudor


Greenwood, Anthony
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Grey, Charles
Milne, Edward
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gariffths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Griffiths, Rt- Hon. James (Llanelly)
Monslow, Walter
Wigg, George


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Morris, John
Willey, Frederick


Gunter, Ray
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phllip (Derby, S.)
Williams W. R. (Openshaw)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Oram, A. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hannan, William
Owen, WW
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Paget, R. T.
Woof, Robert


Hayman, F. H.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Healey, Denis
Parker, John
Zilliacus, K.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pavitt, Laurence



Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Peart, Frederick
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Lawson.


Hilton, A. V.
Pentland, Norman





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bourne-Arton, A.
Channon, H. P. G.


Aitken, W. T.
Box, Donald
Chataway, Christopher


Allason, James
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Boyle, Sir Edward
Collard, Richard


Arbuthnot, John
Braine, Bernard
Cooke, Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
Brewis, John
Cooper, A. E.


Barber, Anthony
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Barlow, Sir John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Corfield, F. V.


Barter, John
Brooman-White, R.
Costain, A. P.


Batsford, Brian
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Coulson, Michael


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Craddock, Sir Beresford


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bryan, Paul
Dance, James


Bell, Ronald
Buck, Antony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Burden, F. A.
Deedes, W. F.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
de Ferranti, Basil


Berkeley, Humphry
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Biffen, John
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Biggs-Davison, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Doughty, Charles


Bingham, R. M.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Drayson, G. B.


Bishop, F. P.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
du Cann, Edward


Black, Sir Cyril
Cary, Sir Robert
Duncan, Sir James







Duthie, Sir William
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Emmett, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Roots, William


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Farr, John
Longbottom, Charles
Russell, Ronald


Fell, Anthony
Longden, Gilbert
Scott-Hopkins, James


Finlay, Graeme
Loveys, Walter H.
Sharples, Richard


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Shaw, M.


Fletcher-Cooks, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Shepherd, William


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
MacArthur, Ian
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McLaren, Martin
Skeet. T. H. H.


Gammans, Lady
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Gardner, Edward
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Smithers, Peter


Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley R.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Gilmour, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maginnis, John E.
Speir, Rupert


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maitland, Sir John
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Godber, J. B.
Manningham-Butler, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Goodhart, Philip
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Goodhew, Victor
Marlowe, Anthony
Stodart, J. A.


Gower, Raymond
Marples, Rt- Hon. Ernest
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Marshall, Douglas
Storey, Sir Samuel


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Marten, Neil
Studholme, Sir Henry


Green, Alan
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Talbot, John E.


Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray
Tapsell, Peter


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mills, Stratton
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Temple, John M.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Morrison, John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Neave, Airey
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hastings, Stephen
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hay, John
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hendry, Forbes
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Orr. Ewing, C. Ian
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Turner, Colin


Hobson, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hocking, Philip N.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Holland, Philip
Partridge, E.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hopkins, Alan
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Vane, W. M. F.


Hornby, R. P.
Peel, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Percival, Ian
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pickthorn, Mr Kenneth
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Iremonger, T. L.
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Walker, Peter


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitman, Sir James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Jackson, John
Pitt, Miss Edith
Wall, Patrick


James, David
Pott, Percivall
Ward, Dame Irene


Jenkin, Robert (Dulwich)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Prior, J. M. L.
Webster, David


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Whitelaw William


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Francis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ramsden, James
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rawlinson, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Woollam, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Rees, Hugh
Worsley, Marcus


Kirk, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Yates. William (The Wrekin)


Kitson, Timothy
Renton, David



Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Leavey, J. A.
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Leburn, Gilmour
Rippon, Geoffrey
Mr. J. E. B. Hill.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
(3H) Any notice served under subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall be accompanied by a statement informing the recipient that he has a right to appeal on the grounds that the effect of the notice will be to inflict unusual hardship either upon him or his dependants and that in the event of his wishing so to appeal he should communicate the grounds of

his appeal to his commanding officer forthwith.

The Deputy-Chairman: With this Amendment we can discuss the Amendment in the same line in the name of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and other hon. Members, to add:
(3B) Any person who receives a notice under subsections (1) or (2) of this section may appeal in writing against his retention, such


appeal to be considered and determined by the Army Council or any officer not below the rank of major-general deputed by them.
However, a Division will, if necessary, be called only on the first Amendment.

Mr. Reynolds: I am glad to be able to move this Amendment, if only to provide the Secretary of State with an opportunity to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) who has already made practically the whole of the sort of speech which one might make in dealing with these two Amendments. He dealt very effectively with the part concerning the Amendment in his name.
We find ourselves in an unusual position, in that the Secretary of State, when discussing an earlier Amendment, gave us details of the machinery it is intended shall be set up to deal with the problem referred to in the Amendment which I have moved. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley has drawn attention to what he considered to be one of the major defects in that machinery, namely, that the chairman of the committee—in whom in all other respects my hon. Friend appears to have every confidence—is closely connected with the organisation which will be responsible for collecting the information upon which the committee will have largely, although not entirely, to depend in advising the Minister.
By moving the Amendment we wish to make certain that any National Service man who receives a notice under the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes law, informing him that he is to be retained will at the same time be given the maximum amount of information about the appeal machinery available to him; the way in which he should make an appeal, and the reasons he may advance for claiming that he should not be retained for a further six months of service. We have endeavoured to set that out in the Amendment which I have moved, and I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us exactly what provision he proposes to make to ensure that soldiers who are told that they are to be retained in the Service are given full information of the methods of appeal open to them and the sort of procedure they will have to expect.
The major joint stressed by my hon. Friend revealed his fear—which is shared by many of us—that although the committee which is to be set up will do a good job of work in sifting some of the information and putting recommendations before the Secretary of State, the decisions of the right hon. Gentleman may be affected by its recommendations. We must emphasise—it would appear that the Secretary of State is of the same opinion—that we must look to the right hon. Gentleman, because of his office, as being responsible for any decisions taken with respect to appeals which are made to him. Of course, once appeal machinery of this nature is set up, one always has at the back of one's mind the thought that while the Secretary of State may accept full responsibility for the decisions made, there is always a tendency on the part of a Minister—any Minister; I make no particular attack on the Secretary of State in this regard—once he has such an advisory committee to tend to shelter behind its recommendations.
Our main purpose in moving this Amendment is to make clear that we consider that the decisions have to be taken by the Army Council, represented here by the Secretary of State, and that we shall hold the right hon. Gentleman responsible for all the decisions. Therefore, although this matter has been partially dealt with already, I hope that we may once again have an assurance from the Secretary of State.

Mr. Profumo: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I try now to answer briefly in respect of a matter to which I have—perhaps wrongly—already referred in connection with the discussion on an earlier Amendment.
I object to these Amendments because they seek to make statutory processes which I believe should be administrative. I can give the Committee this assurance. I am arranging that men who are warned or notified that they are due to be retained will be informed that they can appeal on compassionate grounds or on grounds of exceptional hardship. I hope that this assurance will meet one of the main points in the Amendment.
With regard to the second Amendment, if there is any fear that a commanding officer may refuse to forward an appeal, I can dispose of that immediately.


I have given instructions that no appeal shall be held up by a commanding officer so long as it is supported by evidence. Even were a commanding officer to stop an appeal because it was not supported by evidence, the soldier concerned has a statutory right, under Section 181 of the Army Act, to make representations to his brigadier and then to the Army Council. The authority, of course, lies with me.
In assessing an appeal, no consideration whatever will be given to the military efficiency of the individual concerned. There appeared to be a feeling that perhaps the people whom the Army might want to use would not be able to leave because there would be some reason given for saying that they could not go. I have given explicit instructions—I hope that this will go some way to meet what some hon. Members may have in mind—that all these appeals will come to the War Office and will be dealt with by machinery which I believe to be the right machinery. But, in the end, I as Secretary of State must accept full responsibility for seeing that the provisions contained in this Bill are carried out in the way in which Parliament intends.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I think that the undertaking given by the Secretary of State is satisfactory. The reason why my name was added to the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is that I wanted to ascertain the views of the right hon. Gentleman. Obviously, the authority is vested in his hands. The Army Council is the servant of the Secretary of State, and so that would seem to be all right. As for the rest, it seems to me that his guarantee provides the assurances required. Clearly, the men may make their appeal in writing and an appeal will be sympathetically received. In those circumstances, I see no reason why we should divide.

Mr. Reynolds: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Reynolds: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
(3J) This section shall not apply to men who have served not less than six months of their national service overseas outside Europe.

We have already been given information by the Secretary of State about men who may expect to be retained under the provisions of this Bill. As I understand it, at any rate at present, for the first period with which we are dealing, men serving outside the European theatre in most cases will not be retained for a further six months after they have finished their National Service. So far as I can interpret what the Secretary of State said earlier, it is quite possible that in seven or eight months from now men serving in Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong or Cyprus, or any of the other far-flung and varied places in the world where British troops are stationed, can expect to be retained for a further period, in the same way as anyone serving in B.A.O.R. might be.
We have been told that it is not "bodies" which the Army requires. It is certain specialist groups of people who are trained in a certain way. We have also been told in earlier debates of the difference between the equipment and the various standards and the way in which the forces in central Europe will expect to operate as compared with the activities of men in Malaya, Singapore and Hong Kong which will be completely different. Different types of duty and equipment are involved, and they will operate in a way which is different from the operations of the forces in the Central European theatre.
If there is a man in Hong Kong or in Singapore now, and if he knows his service will end in April, May or June, he may be pretty certain that he will not be retained for another six months. But towards the end of the year such a man may be retained for a further six months and the possibility is that he will he needed because of the European situation and because his services are likely to be required in Europe. It strikes me that if someone has been serving in an overseas station for a considerable pan of the period of his National Service, he will not have been in the fortunate position in which a soldier serving in this country or in Europe might find himself of being able to spend some part of his service on home leave. So that, to start with, it would be unfair to the individual soldier.
The greater question, however, is, would such a man be of assistance to the Army? A man may be brought back


after he has done his basic training and spent twelve or eighteen months with a unit in Singapore or Hong Kong. He comes to the Central European area where the nature of training, the equipment and everything are essentially different. There is a substantial part of the Army which operates in an entirely different way and in a different atmosphere from that of Singapore and Hong Kong. Would it be of exceptional use to bring them from the Far East to Europe? Would the type of training given to the soldier concerned be of particular use to him in Central Europe? Would it not take two or three months for him to get acclimatised to the different methods of operating and organisation?
Will it be of great use to the Army or to the man himself? We feel it is unfair to a man who has done more than six months outside Europe to be brought under this provision by which he can be recalled by the Secretary of State for a further six months.

Sir D. Glover: If, instead of referring to six months, this Amendment had referred to twelve months, I should have had great difficulty in not supporting the Opposition.
A man who has done his training and joins a unit in which he does over half his service overseas will have had very few leaves, but when we consider that the first three months have been spent in training and that he has been out of Europe far six months, he will have been in Europe or at home for eighteen months of his service. We have to take into account the problems of my right hon. Friend in fitting people into holes. It is a question of fitting people into specialised holes, and it follows that there is not an over-surplus of supply all over the Armed Forces.
My right hon. Friend will have to tackle the problem with great skill if hardship is not to accrue to those who serve for a long time overseas. Although my right hon. Friend could not give a categorical assurance, I am sure that the Committee would like to have a firm assurance that the length of service in stations overseas where home leave could not be taken will be taken into account in deciding whether he will retain or release these men.

Mr. Profumo: I should like to be able to accept these Amendments, but I am afraid that I cannot do so for the very reasons that the Bill has been introduced. My job is to try to retain in B.A.O.R. a satisfactory number of people commensurate with our commitments to N.A.T.O. throughout this coming year.
This is the basis of why we are doing it. On Second Reading I made a long speech trying to explain how I would go about it. In the course of that speech I said that in the early release groups after April we should be able to allow those serving in theatres other than B.A.O.R. to come out at their normal times. I also said that later in the year, when there are fewer National Service men available, we shall probably have to keep back the majority of men, wherever they are serving, and transfer them to B.A.O.R. The reason why I cannot be categorical and cannot give an undertaking is that it depends on too many variables. If recruiting goes better than I expect and the build-up is quicker, I shall not need to hold so many men, but if it does not go so well as I expect I may need to hold more men. The point is that there must be enough in B.A.O.R. during 1962 to allow me not to draw on other theatres.
Even if it is not for the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) and other hon. Members would like, the more we move people about the weaker the Army is. I do not want to move people about unless I have to, not only because turbulence is bad for the Army but also because it weakens the Army; though men may have to be moved later on. Among other things I have done, I have sent a very explicit and long instruction to commanders-in-chief all over the world so that they can pass to commanding officers as much information as we know. I do not think that the Committee need mind too much about numbers as the numbers of those who would benefit by a division of this kind would not be very great. Most National Service men are stationed either in this country or in B.A.O.R. The very success of regular recruiting has diminished the number of National Service men with six months' service outside Europe.
I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk said about


a year's service overseas. No doubt hon. Members opposite would have put down another Amendment if they had thought that there were many who had served a year overseas and who would be affected. We shall watch the position as carefully as we can, but I must stick to what I said on Second Reading, that later in the year, when categories in Germany and B.A.O.R. run down, we shall probably have to move a lot of people from other theatres into B.A.O.R. to have more people in the categories we still require. That is to say, if a man were serving in Singapore who, for example, was a member of the Royal Armoured Corps and one of the last categories to be let out and if in B.A.O.R. there was no need for another man in the Royal Armoured Corps, he would be let out, whereas if he were a driver and a driver were needed in the B.A.O.R. he would be retained. While we accept the spirit of the Amendment and will do what we can in this direction, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: From time to time the Secretary of State reveals the blinding truth in a blinding flash. He has done it again and he has forgotten himself. He has thrown away his Departmental brief and has said that this has to do with Regular recruiting and is in order to keep the B.A.O.R. figures up over the next year. It is not the Berlin crisis; that is on the table for the moment.
Of course, the Army has always been under pressure to keep up the figures in B.A.O.R. They have been coming down in the scale from 84,000, to 77,000, to 64,000 and then to 45,000. Then there was a strike against Sandys, lip-service to 54,000, and now we have 51,000. Now we have a force which is completely unbalanced for the next year and wholly dependent on obsolescent American nuclear weapons. The Secretary of State has reached a stage where he has to do something about it. He has to find 15,000 from somewhere to save the face of his supporters who must face the truth in their constituencies. I congratulate the Secretary of State in that once again his honesty as a truthful man is getting the better of his nature.

Mr. Kershaw: I think that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has been blinded by his own truth more than

somewhat because it has always been perfectly clear that the object of the Bill was to keep up the numbers of the Army available to B.A.O.R. Why this should be the moment to reveal it as a truth to the hon. Member I cannot understand.
The Amendment is put forward as a mitigation of hardship to people who have served for a long time outside Europe. I appreciate that. Of course they have not had home leave. On the other hand, there is often the argument that those who join the Army are very keen to go to foreign stations outside Europe and the United Kingdom which are more popular. They all wish to go there. To that extent, perhaps, the Amendment fails to come to the heart of the hardship matter and the Committee ought not to accept it.

Mr. James Dempsey: While it may be argued that these persons were anxious to volunteer for overseas duty, they are also extremely anxious to get leave from an overseas depôt to come to their home country. The Amendment is dealing with those who have given such service.
I paid attention to the assurances which the Minister has tried to offer. The Secretary of State, being a Minister of the Crown, must know that the Armed Forces are organised on such A basis that the availability of the troops has a tremendous influence over the nature and size of the forces required in the various theatres.
6.0 p.m.
I would rather the Secretary of State had given an undertaking that anybody who was available from the home theatre, for instance, and who had never been abroad would be used to relieve the type of person he mentioned who might be serving in the Far East. Anyone who has served in the Services—almost every hon. Member has been in the forces at some time or other—is amazed at the fact that certain sections of the Services scarcely ever leave these shores, but others are sent all over the world. This is not a new experience. There is little danger of a professional footballer going to the Far East. We have had that experience in Scotland and no doubt in England. Unfortunately, if a man does not have influence of that nature in the military camp there


is little hope of his being retained in this country.
The Secretary of State described some of the difficulties; I would rather he had said, "These are the difficulties, but I will try to be helpful. I will examine all the possibilities and if it is practicable to find men who have never seen service in various parts of the world I am willing to do so." It is time that the Secretary of State adopted this attitude. If he adopts my suggestion he will probably find that many Service personnel will be able to serve in these theatres and give a break to other lads who, probably out of a spirit of adventure, decided to opt for overseas service. Once their adventurous spirit begins to die down they start to think of home and the folks they have left behind. They are at this stage anxious to return home.
I have received several letters and many representations about the prospects of Service personnel serving overseas having more home leaves. This proves that they do not mind serving abroad but would like to be able to visit home much more often. There are certain regulations which militate against people who may want to go abroad enlisting, as the Secretary of State realises. I hope to write to him in a day or two about an individual who has attempted to volunteer, but who, because of one mistake in his life, has been deprived of the right to enlist. The right hon. Gentleman should examine the antique regulations and Victorian rules which have applied up to now. He should face the situation objectively by encouraging persons who are anxious to volunteer to do so. He should eliminate all the obsolete rules which still obtain.

Mr. Reynolds: I do not intend to take up very much time because, in the view of most hon. Members, the next Amendment is one of the more important Amendments with which we have to deal. The Secretary of State said that he has sent full information to overseas commanders-in-chief, who will pass it down, about the operation of the scheme provided for in the Clause. I am glad that someone has full information about this, because I think that we still have not anything like as much information as we should like. I hope that the Sec-

retary of State will be able to give us an idea about what type of information he has sent. One difficulty we are in is that we do not know the classes of men to which the scheme is likely to apply. We do not know if they are to be doctors, drivers or gunners.
We have been told that the scheme is to apply both to fighting units and the tail, which does not help us a great deal.
The information sent to overseas commanders-in-chief will presumably give them some idea of the categories and trades which will be required. I hope that at some time the Secretary of State will find some method of giving the Committee the information which has been sent to commanders overseas. If the Secretary of State cannot give us the information on this Amendment, which deals specifically with men who have been stationed overseas for six months or more, I hope that he will do so at a later stage of the Bill. It does not look as if we shall have much time on the debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". This information will presumably be as of much use to the Committee as it will be to the commanders-in-chief.
The Secretary of State may also like to tell us whether, if a man has served overseas for six months or more and it is then decided that he is to be retained, his overseas service can be considered under compassionate or hardship grounds? If any appeal is to be considered, could the fact that a man has served overseas out of the European theatre be used in support of his claim that he should not be retained for a further six months?

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end to add:
(3Q) Any person retained under this section shall be deemed to be a member of the Territorial Army for the purposes of section eleven of the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953, and shall be paid a bounty of a sum equivalent to one hundred days' pay authorised by an order made under the said section eleven.
I shall not detain the Committee very long on the procedural side of the Amendment. This is the Amendment which has caused a little trouble, because initially the Secretary of State was of the opinion, which was shared by


hon. Members on both sides, that in view of the way the Financial Resolution was drafted it would be out of order to table an Amendment dealing with pay or bounties. It was only just before we met on 19th December that it was discovered outside official channels that there were two Acts which could be amended—the Army Reserve Act, 1950, and the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953.
The Amendment seeks to provide that the overwhelming majority of National Servicemen become members of the Territorial Army on the day after they complete their two years' service. The Amendment, therefore, deems them to be members of the Territorial Army and on becoming so, if they are required, notice having been given, to do six months' further service they shall be given a bounty of one hundred days' pay. The advantage of saying one hundred days' pay as against stating a definite amount is that by so doing the maximum amount of flexibility is retained. The sum payable will relate to the rank the man is holding at the time and to his technical qualifications.
I am sure that the Secretary of State cannot object to the principle of granting a bounty in such circumstances. I have here a list of the many occasions on which he has made bounty payments to induce National Service men to enter into Regular engagements and men already serving on Regular engagements to extend their service. Under Clause 3 he is to pay an annual bounty of £150 to persuade men to join his "Ever-Readies".
We are dealing with a group of men who are surely the most unfortunate young men of this generation. They are caught right at the end of the National Service Acts. Many of them have been deferred for as long as five years. I have given the Secretary of State notice of one case. I never like mentioning an individual case in the Chamber if I can avoid it. If I cannot avoid mentioning it, I do not like to do so unless I give the Minister notice, so that, if I am talking nonsense, he can say so. I have details of other cases too, and hon. Members on both sides will have had cases submitted to them of men who have been deferred for five years or more to become doctors or engineers or to gain their G.C.E.s or national diplomas. They are men who with the passage of

time have undertaken family obligations. Some of them have bought houses. They all have one thing in common, namely, that they are on the threshold of their earning career.
These young men have made themselves more valuable to the Army and the State as a result of their acts of self-denial in respect of their earning capacity, in their far-sightedness in not accepting well-paid jobs. By this means they have obtained high qualifications and a capacity to earn more money later on. Theirs has been very real self-denial in the sense of giving up their leisure time night after night and year after year, going from one examination to another, getting over one hurdle only to go on to the one ahead. In other words, their ambition has been to obtain the highest qualifications they could achieve.
Many of these men are the ones who are likely to be held. In the case of some of the doctors—I do not want to argue the case specially from the angle of the doctors—the hardship is much greater because it is for more than five years that they have earned little or nothing. They have qualified and gone straight into the Army, and they have had in mind going out into a hospital to gain more experience or to attain higher qualifications. In many cases they must have borrowed money from their parents and friends. These men will be looking forward to the end of their two years' service so that they can begin to earn some money and discharge their obligations. For them to be held without any financial recompense seems to me to be an act of very grave injustice.
Consequently, I am very glad that I found it possible to table the Amendment—I am sure that this view is shared by the Committee—so that we can test the feelings of hon. Members on this point. I have no doubt whatever that if this were left to a free vote there would be an overwhelming majority of hon. Members sharing the feeling, whatever our views might be about National Service—whether hon. Members are charged with being militarists or whether they sit on the clouds and are pacifists—that we must do the right thing. So far as money can be provided by the House to meet examples of gross injustice, I am sure there must be almost


a unanimous wish on the part of hon. Members that such action should be taken.
I do not want to indulge in special pleading. Had this Measure been introduced three or four years ago when we were dealing with the ordinary run-of-the-mill National Service men doing their two years, coming in at 18 and going out at 20, my case would have been nothing like as strong as it is. But we have to remember that 60,000 men were removed from call-up by the arbitrary administrative action of the Minister of Labour in November, 1960, when he merely said "The Government do not want these chaps. So we just will not call them up." That resulted in our getting into the military service net this group of men who had been deferred for four, five or more years. One has also to remember, on top of that, the men who have gone into the Navy and the Royal Air Force and are completely exempt from these provisions.
In the light of those considerations, I think that I am as far removed from special pleading as I could possibly be in asking hon. Gentlemen to use their voices and influence and, in the ultimate, their votes if the Government will not agree to make sure that justice is done to these men. If these men have to be held for an extra six months in their country's service, I hope that the Committee will, so far as it has it in its power, remove from them the financial obligations which I am convinced in many cases border on ruin for them and the giving up of their studies.
I would at the same time remind hon. Members of the financial concessions that the Government offered last year, in pursuance of their policy, in the hope that men who are serving would undertake longer engagements or that men who are reservists would undertake service in the A.E.R. and so on. I feel that I am, without any special pleading, making a case which the Government cannot answer and that they must accept the Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: In supporting the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), I would not for a single moment claim that the Government are wrong in seeking to retain these men. After all,

many hon. Members have served in the Forces much longer than these young men are being asked to do.
The hon. Member for Dudley, to whose ingenuity in tabling Amendments I have paid tribute in the past, has pleaded on behalf of those men who have been deferred in the past. Young men who are serving in the normal course of events and have not had the benefit of deferment are also in a special category, because they, too, come at the end of the queue. Those who are marginally younger by a few days or weeks are not required to serve in the Forces at all. Therefore, they have had a very considerable head start in establishing themselves in civilian life, and in so many spheres of civil life today seniority is more important than it was in the past. Therefore, the young men whom we are now calling upon to serve an extra six months are in a much worse position than those who have done National Service in the past when others of succeeding generations were following on behind.
There are two arguments which will probably be adduced against the Amendment. The first is that we cannot treat these men any better than Regular soldiers but that by giving them a bounty we should do so. There is not much force in this argument. After all, they will serve only for six months, and so it is a short-term problem. I cannot believe that any Regular soldiers worth their salt will be disaffected by the payment of a gratuity to such men, and if their morale is going to be adversely affected by it, I think the Army would be far better off without them.
The other argument is that there is not the money available. I believe that it would be infinitely better to pay a gratuity such as this than the rather inflated sums which are to be devoted to the "Ever-Readies". I believe that the "Ever-Readies" will be overpaid, and possibly substantially over-compensated, by the Government. It is also probable that we might find savings in the Army Estimates soon to be discussed to provide money which could be better devoted to this purpose, but one would be out of order in discussing Army expenditure in general now.
I believe that these young men will be harshly treated. I believe that we can


make some financial recompense to them for the necessarily harsh treatment, and I hope that the Government will at least go some way towards accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dudley, because I fear that, if they cannot move at all, I shall have to support the hon. Member in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Bellenger: I am very glad that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has supported the principle of the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). Indeed, he has supported the actual Amendment. I hope that the Secretary of State, even if he will not go all the way that my hon. Friend wants him to go, will do something, because the principle has been conceded, inasmuch as he has told us that those whom he may call up from the Reserve in an emergency will be paid a bounty all the time they are there as "Ever-Readies".
The right hon. Gentleman may say that those men will get Regular rates of pay if they are kept in the Army for six months beyond their two years. I do not think that is good enough. After all, that is, one might say, the rate for the job they are doing, but what we ask for is something in addition to that to ameliorate the feeling of broken contract between them and the Secretary of State. These young men, their parents and others connected with them recognised when the National Service Act was passed that they had to do their duty, and, on the whole, they have done their duty without too much grumbling. They have suffered a certain amount of hardship already, and what makes it worse is that a great many of them will be selected for B.A.O.R., so that they have an additional grudge.
Does the Secretary of State want to have an Army or a portion of an Army suffering under a feeling that it has not been treated fairly? I suppose it will react on Parliament. Nevertheless, it is the Secretary of State who has taken the initiative, and I do not think it is an adequate answer, even to those hon. Members on his own side who are sympathetic to the point of view which has been put from these benches, for him to say that it is too much of a financial burden. After all, the extra six months will cost him something,

and Parliament will be expected to pay for it. Why should Parliament therefore grudge an extra bounty such as the hon. Member for Dudley has asked for?
The whole question as to the future relationship of National Service, and whether it is to be the selective service which my hon. Friend seems to want, depends on whether the country will accept these things. Men will accept them—whether or not it is to be selective service, which this undoubtedly is—only if they feel that they are not being asked to bear a burden because they are a small minority, on whom the Secretary of State for War has his hands at the moment, and because they are in uniform—

Mr. Wigg: It is not the selective service that I want, but the selective service which the right hon. Gentleman and others have got.

Mr. Bellenger: Whatever it is that my hon. Friend wants, and it is sometimes a little difficult to find out what he does want, he is quite definite on this occasion about what he wants, and he even specified a hundred days' pay. I am glad he has done that, sentimentally, rhetorically, perhaps, but the fact remains that we have got to get the country with us. It may be necessary, if we are in an emergency, and it is quite possible that we may be, for a much bigger bill to be laid before Parliament. Why should the Secretary of State jib, as I expect he will, at the point of view that has been expressed behind him and on this side of the Committee? One does not want to delay too long, because we are working to a timetable, and there are other very important points which will arise on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Brian Harrison: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend to consider very carefully whether he cannot accept this Amendment. It has very definite advantages, and, in particular, it has a form of justice in it in that the person to be retained would be paid at the rate authorised, so that qualified people with special qualifications would receive a better share.
It is quite clear that this short-term Measure to deal with a long-term problem—that is, the retention of people


in National Service for six months—is an unsatisfactory solution to the long-term problem as we have it at the moment, but, if we are to use this method of retaining people after they have already carried out their statutory obligations, I think that the greatest consideration must be given to them. I very much hope that that consideration will be shown by my right hon. Friend in accepting this Amendment.

Mr. Frank Allaun: If the Secretary of State is a fair man, he must admit to himself, if not to us, that there is real injustice on the National Service man serving an extra six months. The Minister says that it is a regrettable necessity. I am sure that that is his argument. If it is a regrettable necessity, at least he can do the right thing by compensating them in this way, though I believe that some of the hardships which will be endured will not be compensated for financially, because it would be impossible to do so.
I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that not only will the "Ever-Readies" receive £150 a year, as has been pointed out on both sides of the Committee, but they will also receive, as I understand it, an initial bounty of £50. What is fit for the goose is fit for the gander, and it seems a monstrous business that these people will receive so much while the conscripts will receive not a cent. This is really getting men on the cheap. What is more, the "Ever-Readies" will be men who like the Army; otherwise, they would not be volunteering. But these are men who, probably, utterly dislike service in the Forces. Surely, then, they should have some compensation.
Finally, I doubt whether this whole business was necessary at all. I think it results from a panic in August, when the American Government said to all the N.A.T.O. countries, "Show an increase in your service men." Even so, even if it is a regrettable necessity, which I doubt, the only fair thing is to give compensation to those people who suffer a double hardship.

Mr. Kershaw: A powerful case has been deployed by all the speakers in this debate, but I am afraid that I cannot associate myself with their opinions,

although one has an inclination to do so on first thought. In the first place, I do not think that anybody except my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has thought it out in the detail he should.
Those people when retained will get an increase. They will be on Regular rates of pay, and that is a quite considerable increase for some of them. Therefore, there is some financial compensation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not think that the comparison which the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) was making between the "Ever-Readies" and those who are retained was quite so powerful as he made out, because, after all, the "Ever-Readies" get nothing except this bounty. They are not getting a higher rate of pay, and the situation is not quite comparable.

Mr. Allaun: It is quite clear that in addition to the £3 a week they will be getting normal pay—perhaps getting £15.

Mr. Kershaw: Certainly normal wages have nothing to do with the Army or what we can grant the men. The induce-anent to them to come into the "Ever-Readies"—perhaps I am straying a little out of order—is this bounty.

Mr. Wigg: Perhaps if the hon. Member cannot see the logic of the case he will at least see that men who are being held for an extra six months get a higher rate of pay compared with the men on a three-year engagement. They would be getting civilian rates of pay, too.

Mr. Kershaw: Certainly the comparison with civilian rates of pay is one which one can make, but we are not concerned with that matter but with the rate of pay which the Army is giving. Although I have agreed before with what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said I cannot agree with him about this. I cannot agree that an extra rate for them is, on the whole, necessary or fair in the circumstances.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I think that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The "Ever-Ready" gets the Regular rate of pay, that is to say, he is put in the same position as the recalled man. He gets this plus a bounty.

Mr. Kershaw: Certainly, but the man held in retention is given this bounty and he is put to a certain amount of trouble, a certain amount of disability. He cannot move about and so on. Clearly, he undertakes an obligation in return for money. I do not think that the comparison, therefore, has quite the force which the hon. Member for Salford, East thought.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman says that the "Ever-Ready" cannot move about. It is the first time we have heard this. Is he under any physical limitation if he is an "Ever-Ready"?

Mr. Kershaw: The "Ever-Ready" is under a limitation to make himself available. It is that obligation which he undertakes.
As nearly as I can calculate, this bounty, if it were paid, would cost some £5 million to £7 million. It is a hard calculation to make because one does not know how many people would be involved, but, on average, that would be the cost of it. It is a considerable sum to give. I do not really believe that the hardship involved in the six months to comparatively small numbers would really justify this large expenditure, much as, I am sure, the Committee would like to give it.

Mr. Shinwell: So far this debate has been conducted on the most friendly lines, and this is the first mean speech we have had.

Mr. Wigg: Mean man.

Mr. Shinwell: I regret it all the more because it affords some encouragement to the right hon. Gentleman. I am quite sure that if that speech had not been made the right hon. Gentleman would have conceded if not the whole of the case at any rate 50 per cent. I beg him not to pay too much attention to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw). It is a shocking moral lapse by the hon. Member to have made a speech of that character.
I want to adduce, in addition to the powerful arguments which have been deployed by my hon. Friends and others, one further suggestion. It is that the right hon. Gentleman should take into account what, apparently, the hon. Member for Stroud is not aware of, namely, the disparity between the pay

of the National Service men and the Regulars. This has been operating ever since the beginning of the National Service Act. I had something to do with it. We provided a differentiation in pay. It was done for this purpose, in order to persuade the National Service men to join up for a longer period in the Regular Force, and it succeeded to a considerable extent.
Only the other day, with his usual courtesy, the right hon. Gentleman sent me a letter. It arose out of a Supplementary Question I had asked before the Recess. It related to the pay of the men who are to be retained. This is what I discovered, and what, apparently, many hon. Members of the Committee do not know. The pay of the men who are to be detained for a further six months is to be 11s. a day as compared with the 16s. a day of the Regulars on a six-year engagement. Why this disparity? Surely if men are to be called up for a further six months the very least we can do is to mitigate the hardships which are involved.
If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to concede the demand made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), may I make the suggestion to him that, as an alternative, the men who are retained for a further six months should be paid the same rates as the Regulars if they occupy the same ranks? Is that not fair? Is there anything wrong with that? I am not so sure myself that men would not prefer that to accepting the 100 days' pay. After all, they are then on an equal footing with the Regulars. The man who is serving two and a half years is performing a very valuable function in the Army and he deserves the same consideration as the man who joined up as a volunteer.
I am not going to argue the case of the "Ever-Readies". I see the reason why the right hon. Gentleman has to provide an incentive. Without that incentive I doubt if there would be an excessive rush to join the Regular Force. It is the bounty which will provide the incentive, but in the case of those men who are being forced to remain in the Service and who will be in the Service for another six months, unless on compassionate grounds they are released for


that period, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman must make some cencession, otherwise he is going to have an even more discontented body of National Service men than he has at present.
I do not subscribe to what some hon. Members have said about all the National Service men being discontented and regarding National Service as a complete waste. I know of many National Service men who have gained considerably, physically and mentally, as the result of being in the Army, although I do not doubt that many of them will be glad to get out and that many will object to being retained for another six months. But what I do say is that it is not advisable that we should add to the discontent which already exists, and I can imagine the position of any man who believes he is to go out of the Force very shortly and who receives a communication from the right hon. Gentleman saying that he has got to remain for another six months. If that letter is accompanied by a promissory note which indicates that he is going to receive either 100 days' pay or the same rate of pay as his brother the Regular in the Army, I believe it will mitigate the hardship involved.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman, if he cannot assure us now, at any rate to give the matter some consideration, and perhaps on Report he may be able to give us the assurance we require.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: When my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) first discussed the idea contained in his Amendment, which is, to a large extent, embodied in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), my first reaction was that I could not accept the idea of paying these men more than would be paid to the volunteer. Since then, one or two other thoughts have occurred to me. Some of them have already been aired here, but one that I think is somewhat relevant has not so far been mentioned.
There was a time, not so many years ago, when we were dishing out "golden bowlers", as they were known, to certain Regular officers whose services were no longer required, and I find it a little paradoxical that we should now be refusing to give something by way of a "golden raincoat", or whatever it may

be, to these men whom we are retaining, As I say, we were at one time prepared to give a "golden bowler" to men whom we did not want to keep on for as long as they would have preferred to stay. That is, perhaps, the strongest argument in favour of the Amendment and, to that extent, I think that I am persuaded to support the hon. Member for Dudley.
I have been making a rapid calculation of the probable cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) mentioned a sum of between £5 million and £7 million. I doubt whether it would cost as much. Averaging it out over all the men we keep, and we do not want to keep more than 25,000—I doubt if we shall keep as many as that—it would seem that the cost would be somewhere between £2,600,000 and £3 million. That is quite a lot of money, and with the pay pause we ought to give very serious consideration to whether we can do it at present.
The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has said, and I agree with him to some extent, that Clause 1 involves a breach of contract. It is easy to blame the Government, but those who have really brought this situation about are all the potential volunteers who never volunteered. If we had got voluntary recruiting to the desired level this Clause would not have been necessary. so the people really responsible for causing the Government to break their contract with these men are a very considerable section of the younger part of our population—

Mr. Paget: We say that this is a breach of contract by the Government—as, of course, it is—but, after all, the Government had the recruits whom they expected, and for whom they asked. The Minister has said, time and again, that recruiting has been a success, and fully up to his expectations.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am, perhaps, a little more up to date in my figures than is the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—having spent a considerable number of hours at Woolwich today. I have yet to believe that had the volunteer figures exceeded even by one-third the present level those men would have been turned away.
On balance, I would say that the argument comes down decisively in favour


of this Amendment, or something that will implement the same principle. I do not necessarily adhere to the exact wording used by the hon. Member for Dudley if the Secretary of State says that it is incorrect. Nevertheless, although not enough National Service men may, perhaps, have realised that their part-time service obligation or liability to recall was always there, I think that there is here a justifiable ground for saying that these men who are now doing their National Service did not expect to do full-time service for more than two years. We are now telling them to be ready to do it for up to two years and six months. If we could give the "golden bowler" to those whom we wished to get rid of before they wanted to go, surely we must do something comparable for these men.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Dempsey: It is encouraging to note that all the speeches so far, with one exception, have been in favour of the principle contained in the Amendment. That principle is that those affected should receive some form of compensation, and I hope that the Minister will try to assess the situation in its true perspective.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to admit that the "Ever-Readies" will receive a bounty of £150, plus, of course, their civilian pay. They may do some training within their neighbourhood but will have their homes, wives and families continuously with them. No physical sacrifice is involved, generally speaking. If those men can receive such a bounty, in addition to their civilian pay, a very reasonable case can be argued for some kind of compensation for those who have to serve for a further six months, at the expense of civilian employment and home comforts.
Some of us know that many of the individuals who will be involved in further military service had made very elaborate plans for their return from National Service. Many of those plans will, as the Scottish bard has said, "gang aft a-gley" because of this technical breach of contract, and it is only fair that the Minister should recognise that he has some responsibility for such a situation, and should look favourably

on the appeal for compensation for these Service personnel.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has been rather modest in his selection of 100 days' pay, because we are dealing with people who will lose six months' civilian employment. They could have been working for 26 weeks, and could have earned much more than 12s. 6d. a day. According to the Minister of Labour, the average earnings of our workers are £14 a week. That is roughly 6s. an hour, or 48s. per clay. Those are not my figures but those of the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend. To replace that loss, the Minister offers these retained individuals 12s. 6d. a day.
Even allowing for subsistence and the like, there is a very great difference between the rate that the National Service man will receive for the further six months and what he might have earned had he spent that time in civilian employment. It is very unfair that no cognisance should have been taken of the family loss—the loss in earning capacity—that the National Service man will suffer for the additional six months that he is being retained
I would remind the Minister that we are not here dealing with professional soldiers—with people who volunteered to endure the hardships and submit to the rigours of Army life—but with people whom we have physically compelled to enter the Service and endure its privations. We must remember that we have compelled them to suffer those rigours and privations for two years, and that we are now deciding to extend the period to two and a half years. If the Minister bears this in mind he will surely give a favourable reception to the principle contained in the Amendment. As I say, all except one hon. Member who has spoken on this subject has been convinced that a case for its acceptance has been made out. That being so, surely the Minister must give favourable attention to the representations that have been made to him?
This is not something which should be dealt with politically, for we have a responsibility to the individuals concerned—apart from any political or conflicting ideologies which may be involved—to see that the right thing is done.


We are about to take a step which will mean that thousands of individuals who planned to return home at the end of two years' service will be obliged to continue for an additional six months. As we are creating that position we have a moral responsibility to see that these individuals are compensated, at least to some degree, for the excess service we are compelling them to give which will deprive them of earning in civilian employment.
If the Minister will merely indicate his willingness to look at this again, to take advice and analyse the possibility of extending the compensation principle contained in the Amendment, I am sure that he would be acting in the interests of both the Committee and the Service men concerned. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the remarks of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) regarding people who do not receive a few pounds in compensation but several thousands of pounds because their employment life has been interrupted. In this instance we are interrupting the employment lives of thousands of Service men who, but for our decision, would be returning home to take part in their normal day-to-day civil employment. Since we are interrupting it to the extent of six months we have a public and moral duty to these people, and I hope that the Minister will see the position in this light and indicate that he at least approves of the principle of this Amendment, which seeks to give them a bounty of 100 days' pay.

Mr. John Hall: I had not intended to intervene in the debate on this or any other Amendment because I do not believe that this mistaken Bill can be made more palatable by any form of Amendment. I have been brought to my feet by the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and his disclosures about the Regular rates of pay, and by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and his references to Vibe "golden bowler" and the "golden raincoat."
With due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely, the two are not the same. In the case of the

"golden bowler", compensation is being given to someone whose career has been brought to an untimely end when the individual concerned might have had some anticipation of several further years of service. In the case under discussion, the Government are retaining men against their will in a career which they would be happy to give up as soon as possible. In this case, we are not depriving them of any financial gain except the possible one of their returning to civil life.
Nevertheless, there is some substance in the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington. It was not my original inclination to support the idea of giving bonuses to those retained for an additional six months because I was under the impression that they were to receive the full Regular rates of pay. If that is not so I think the Minister should tell us exactly what is the position. If I understood the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington aright, his information was that the rates of pay would be lower than the rates enjoyed by Regular serving soldiers. That is contrary to the impression that I had previously had. If one found that these rates differ in the way the right hon. Gentleman described, then one would have to consider one's support for the Amendment.

Mr. Profumo: The Amendment would deem all those who are to be retained under this Clause to be artificially in the Territorial Army for the purposes of one Section only of the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953—that is, Section 11 dealing with government, discipline and pay.
I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has worded his Amendment in this way to bring it within the rules of Order and I respect him for being able to do that. But I am concerned with whether or not I can accept the principle behind the Amendment and I am deeply moved by the appeals which have been made. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) for what he said. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) called that a mean speech, I am afraid that the Committee will feel that what I have to say is also mean—and I am sorry, in advance, if


that is what hon. Members will think, for I must try to interpret this matter as carefully as I can,
A lot has been said about the principle involved. I must point out that bounties are, of course, paid in recognition of voluntary action or service.

Mr. Gordon Walker: What about the "golden bowler"?

Mr. Profumo: I am talking about bounties proper. I was saying that they are always paid in recognition of voluntary action or service. To pay bounties to those answering a statutory liability would be the first time that that has ever been done and it would be inappropriate.

Mr. Wigg: I had anticipated that remark and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he is incorrect. During the 1914–18 war Regular soldiers whose engagements expired during that war and who were held in Service under the appropriate Act were paid a bounty, which accumulated with interest, at the end of the war. Those people were held in compulsory service.

Mr. Profumo: I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my case because I absolutely recognise the position. I said that bounties are paid for voluntary action or service. If Her Majesty's Government had wanted to rely on voluntary service for the purposes of this Bill—which I have already explained to the Committee—we should have gone about matters in a completely different way. That was not our purpose. Our purpose is precisely the same as that which motivated the Labour Government when they extended National Service for six months in 1950.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) spoke about a breach of contract. I do not see why there should be one term of contract for one Government and another term for another Government. There was no thought in 1950 of a breach of contract when the then Government did what they thought—perhaps in different circumstances—to be absolutely right; to extend the terms of service for National Service men for another six months.

Mr. Dempsey: rose—

Mr. Profumo: I am not seeking to make a party point. I have listened

patiently to the arguments that have been adduced and I am trying to answer the questions put to me. The then Government did not see fit to give any grant for disturbance to the National Service man who was thereby retained, in a similar way, for an unexpected further period of six months. That is all I am saying. The then Government did not see fit to compensate those men by paying them Regular rates of pay. Again, I am not making a party point. I would have said exactly that if my own party had done the same thing. I am comparing like with like. I am arguing a principle. There has always been a special rate of pay for National Service men. We are changing things for the better in recognition of the special circumstances.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. He cannot go on talking in this fashion. Is he not aware that after eighteen months' service, National Service men were brought up to Regular rates of pay, quite apart from proficiency pay which the Regulars had and quite independent of whether they were tradesmen. Does he deny what I am saying? There is now a disparity as between 16s. which is the average rate for a man serving a six-year engagement and a rate of 11s. for the National Service man.

Mr. Profumo: I am saying that from the moment the National Service man enters his extended period of service, the pay will be the pay and allowances appropriate to a Regular soldier serving on Scale A. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have misunderstood.

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Mr. Profumo: Please let me develop this point. I have the figures in front of me. I hope I have not misinterpreted them in the letter that I wrote. The right hon. Gentleman says that I explained that the rate was 11 s. at the minimum. The rate is 12s. 6d., not 11 s. It is 12s. 6d. for Scale A. The scale of 15s. that he quoted was the scale for a soldier serving more than six years. Scale A applies to a period up to six years. As these National Service men will not be serving for more than six years, we have put them on the 12s. 6d. rate, not 11s., which is the lowest


rate on Scale A for soldiers who will be serving less than six years. Over six years, which they are not going to serve, the rate is 15s. This is not a large point, but I hope it answers my hon. Friend who raised it. We are going to put these men on Regular rates of pay applicable to the service which they are doing. The soldier will also get his marriage allowance at the rates applicable to a Regular soldier. In fact, marriage allowance was not permissible for National Service men. So we have done our best to try to put these soldiers, who I agree have been confronted suddenly with something which they did not expect, on to something like Regular rates of pay applicable to the service which they will be performing. I think this is the right way to do it. In addition, the National Service grants are available should circumstances justify them for the retained National Service man.
I should perhaps explain the effect of National Service grants and the new pay and allowances received by National Service men. As the Committee knows, National Service grants are intended to diminish hardship resulting from the reduction in a man's income when he is called up. They are paid on my behalf by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. The new rates of pay and marriage allowance will mean an increase in income, and to that extent the grants will fall to be adjusted. None the less, the combined result of the changes in pay, allowances and grants will in all cases be distinctly favourable to a man and his wife. I am, of course, arranging that this position shall be explained to all the men concerned, and my right hon. Friend will explain it to the wives and families.
Some hon. Members have said that this is pretty mean, because they compare it with what people get in civilian life. I beg hon. Members to remember that it is no good quoting the 11s. or 15s. or any rate of pay because members of the Armed Forces get a great deal of increment in the form of free living, free transport, free food and all the things which are left out of consideration when one compares civilian rates of pay with Service rates of pay. I believe that any hon. Members who has travelled extensively and has seen the Armed Forces

here and overseas will agree that, by and large, Regular rates of pay are no longer a real bone of contention.
May I return to the subject of the Amendment. I agree that there are gratuities. There is a gratuity of £20 which I am proposing should be paid to part-time National Service men if under Clause 2 they were to be recalled later on. But that is specifically to help with the out-of-pocket expenses which are likely to arise from the disturbance of recall. Retained men will not suffer that particular disturbance and, therefore, I do not think they qualify for a gratuity.
The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has again, in a helpful speech, put his finger on the situation. I agree with him. I do not think one can measure hardship in terms of money. I do not think one can measure disturbance in a case of this sort. There may be more disturbance to one man than to another. The only way of dealing with the situation is to take each case of hardship and disturbance on its merits and see what we can do to pay everybody who is retained the proper rate of pay for a soldier in that category.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) raised the point of the "golden bowler." I do not think this is comparing like with like. The question of the golden bowler arose because Her Majesty's Government decided that they would bring to an end a voluntary contract. I ask the Committee to remember that there is all the difference in the world between a statutory obligation that this House places on members of the public, which we are now increasing, and a voluntary contract entered into between Her Majesty's Government and a member of the public. That voluntary contract may be to serve 6, 9 or 22 years which, in the case of the golden bowler, we have prematurely brought to an end. Therefore, we felt that we ought to give some compensation.
This we are not doing, and, with respect to my hon. Friend, I do not find that this is comparing like with like. I believe that the right way of dealing with this problem is the way that we propose to deal with it. That is to raise pay and allowances to the existing level of Regular soldiers and to deal with


hardship cases separately on their individual merits. I regret to say that although I know this will be a disappointment to the Committee, I cannot agree to the Amendment.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman now agrees to bring the National Service men who are to be retained for another six months up to the level of the minimum pay of the Regular soldier?

Mr. Profumo: I regret that in trying to help the right hon. Gentleman I appear to have made it more difficult for him. Perhaps I could show him the Army Estimates and the appropriate columns. I am proposing to put all retained National Service men on Scale A.

Mr. Shinwell: Which is that?

Mr. Profumo: That is for those who serve up to six years. It starts at 12s. 6d. and not 11s. We are putting them on rates of pay applicable to people who serve regularly in the Service up to six years.

Mr. Shinwell: Not the Regular pay?

Mr. Profumo: It is Regular pay. It is Scale A Army pay. The right hon. Gentleman was thinking of soldiers who serve for more than six years.

Mr. Shinwell: Is this not the recruits' pay? When they join up for a period of six years they start with the figure mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. That is the position. But why not put the National Service man who will serve 2½ years on the same footing as the Regular man who is himself serving 2½ years?

Mr. Profumo: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the minimum pay on Scale A. It goes up. I have written to the right hon. Gentleman showing all these figures and the increments obtainable in certain circumstances, plus the marriage allowance which is given on top of that. I am certain this is the right way to compensate. We are putting these men on Regular rates of pay applicable to men serving up to six years but not more.

Mr. Paget: So as to have the matter quite clear, I will take the case of two men, Smith and Jones, who start their

Army careers on the same day. Smith takes on a six-year engagement. Jones is called up for National Service. After they have both served two years together, Jones is required to serve a further six months. Is the pay which he receives during that further six months precisely the same as the pay which his friend Smith receives during those six months? That is the test. Is that not a fair question to answer? Will the Minister tell us?

Mr. Wigg: May I try to help my hon. and learned Friend? The right hon. Gentleman may not remember this, but on 27th November last—this is reported in column 49 of HANSARD—he told the House that the man who was retained for the 2½ years would receive the rate of pay applicable to a man on the short service Regular engagement of three years. That being so, he would start off with a rate of pay of 12s. 6d. for Grade IV advancing up to 17s. The Mr. Smith spoken of by my hon. and learned Friend enters on a six-year engagement. and he will have started at 15s. They will not be on the same rate of pay.

Mr. Paget: That is precisely the answer I was asking the Minister to give. I am glad to have it. This, of course, is the test. Two men join together on the same day. They serve in the same platoon. They are next to each other. One is a National Service man and one is a Regular.

Mr. Kershaw: For how long?

Mr. Paget: They serve there for two years. At the end of those two years, the National Service man is required to serve a further six months. During that time, is he to be treated as the Regular, his friend Mr. Smith, or is he not? That is what we want to know and what the country wants to know.

Mr. Profumo: I am sorry to have to intervene again. I think the difference between us is this. The hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to a man who joins up as a Regular on a six-year engagement and he asks whether his position will be the same as that of a National Service man serving his extra six months. The answer is "No", because the hon. and learned Gentleman is not comparing like with like.
What happens is that a man who joins as a Regular soldier serving up to six years under scale A would be on exactly the same rates of pay as a National Service man now serving his extra six months. That is comparing like with like.

Mr. Shinwell: No.

Mr. Profumo: It would be exactly the same; it would start at 12s. 6d.

Mr. Paget: Can we compare like with like better than by taking the case of two twin brothers, George and John Smith? They join on the same day. They are in the same platoon. They have precisely the same qualifications. One joins as a Regular on a six-year engagement and the other is a National Service man. The Minister says that, at the end of the two years, he is putting the National Service man, so far as pay is concerned, in the position of the Regular.
I ask the simple question. the test question: does he or does he not get the same pay packet at the same time as his twin brother? The answer is that he does not.

Mr. Profumo: Perhaps we can take three brothers. One brother joins up on a three-year engagement. In other words, he serves less than six years. That is scale A. One brother joins on a six-year engagement, that is, more than six years, and that is scale B. One brother is a jolly good chap and he joins up for nine years or more, which is scale C. They will get 12s. 6d. 15s. and 18s. 6d., respectively.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: At the beginning.

Mr. Profumo: At the beginning. The one I am taking is the one on scale A at 12s. 6d. That is what the National Service man will get if he serves the extra time.

Mr. Paget: The three-year engagement has now gone. We have only got a six-year engagement.

Mr. Profumo: Have a look at this and read the thing. It is all here.

Mr. Paget: I am quite familiar with that book. The three-year engagement has now been abolished.

Mr. Wigg: They have swung over to a normal engagement for six years, but they have retained the three-year engagement for the Brigade of Guards, for certain branches of the Catering Corps and certain other branches. The Government have limited the three-year engagement to about 1,000 men a year, and it is a minority engagement.

Mr. Paget: I am not talking about these oddments. They are totally irrelevant to this argument. When one is talking about Regular pay one is talking about the man who has taken on what is today the ordinary Regular engagement, which is six years.

Mr. John Hall: Not only six.

Mr. Paget: Six or nine. I am taking the minimum. I am giving the Minister that.

Mr. Kershaw: Three is the minimum.

Mr. Paget: No. Now no one can join for three except in those special Corps. The ordinary engagement is for six years. The National Service man will not get the Regular rate of pay. I do not propose to go further into that now. The case of the two twin brothers seems to me a sound basis for comparing like with like, and for the extra six months they do not have the same money.
My next point is this. Except for the political accident that in 1950 there was a different Government, I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman went back to that time to make a comparison. One could go back to 1938 or to 1916. Whenever we introduce conscription in wartime which applies throughout to everyone, totally different considerations apply. In 1950 we were at war in Korea. We increased the period of conscription to two years on the same terms for everybody. That is totally different saying that for a particular job we require 15,000 men—only the sort of number of civil servants the Minister has in his own Department—and we refuse to pay them the rate for the job. That is what it comes to. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to get the men on the cheap.
Then comes the most cynical observation I have ever heard from a Government. The right hon. Gentleman says


that we only pay bounties when the service is voluntary. When we can pressgang them, when we can seize them by the ear, says the right hon. Gentleman, there does not have to be a bounty and we do riot have to waste money in that way. We have got the poor fellows and we do riot have to consider the rate for the job. After they have been collared and the press gang has got them, we do not have to consider any question of fairness. Could cynicism go further?
Fifteen thousand men only are required by the Government to get the Government out of a jam of their own making. The right hon. Gentleman suggests, not that they should be paid the rate for the job, but something less.
The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that if he put this on a voluntary basis, he would get scarcely a volunteer, even on the improved terms which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley suggests. Is it unreasonable to ask that the Government should go some sort of way towards making the payment the rate for the job, the market rate, something a little nearer to what they would have to pay to get these men on the free market?
Is it unreasonable to say that the Government should pay these 15,000 men something nearer the rate for the job when they have to pay the rate for the job for the great array of civil servants whose wages have to be negotiated? How far do the Government think that they would get if they had to negotiate these rates with a trade union representative? Are they saying that if this were a fair negotiation their first offer would not be something miles in front of what they now suggest? Of course it would. They would not begin with a figure anywhere near their suggested figure in those circumstances. What they are doing is to treat these men in this way merely because the men have been press-ganged.
It is particularly vicious because this legislation is catching the very men who had long deferments in order, by sacrificing the present, to acquire large earning capacity for the future. The Government are making a derisory payment for that earning capacity and are doing

so to suit their own convenience. This is a mean thing to do. Doctors, other professional men, those who have completed their apprenticeships and others who are qualified would be able to command wages on the civilian market far in excess of what the Government propose to pay them, even if the suggested bonus were added. On the civilian market they could double even the rate which would result from an acceptance of the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley. This is not fair and decent.
Admittedly the Bill is unjust. It is an injustice imposed on individuals. It is unreasonable that the Government should not do something, that the nation should not do something, in terms of cash, not to compensate for that injustice, but in some measure to mitigate it and in some measure to bring what we pay into some sort of relationship with what we ask.

Mr. Wigg: I have no hesitation on this occasion about asking the Committee to support me in the Division Lobby. It is true that on Second Reading the Secretary of State said that these men would get the rate of pay applicable to men serving a three-year engagement. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was absolutely right to point out that in July, 1957, the Government withdrew the three-year engagement as a normal engagement and substituted the six-year engagement for it. It is perfectly true that in the overwhelming number of units where these men will be retained the Regulars will be receiving rates of pay for a six-year engagement far above what these National Service men will receive.
The Secretary of State knows better than to hold out the palliative of higher rates for marriage allowance, because the minority of men who are married would prefer not to have a further six months' separation. That was a piece of sophistry on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and we should regard it as absolute nonsense. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will serve their consciences this time and will support the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 172, Noes 239.

Division No. 54.]
AYES
[7.27 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Pavitt, Laurence


Ainsley, William
Hannan, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Albu, Austen
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peart, Frederick


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, Norman


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Prentice, R. E.


Awbery, Stan
Harbison, Miss Margaret
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Probert, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Hilton, A. V.
Randall, Harry


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Holman, Percy
Redhead, E. C.


Bence, Cyril
Holt, Arthur
Reynolds, G. W.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hoy, James H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Blyton, William
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N,)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boardman, H.
Hunter, A. E.
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Bowies, Frank
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Boyden, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Short, Edward


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jeger, George
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skeffington, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Cliffe, Michael
Kelley, Richard
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Collick, Percy
Kenyon, Clifford
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Snow, Julian


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
King, Dr. Horace
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, George
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Deer, George
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)



Delargy, Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Steele, Thomas


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Diamond, John
MacColl, James
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Dodds, Norman
McInnes, James
Swain, Thomas


Donnelly, Desmond
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swingler, Stephen


Driberg, Tom
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Symonds, J. B.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Evans, Albert
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Timmons, John


Fernyhough, E.
Mallalieu, J.P.W- (Huddersfield, E.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Finch, Harold
Manuel, A. C.
Wade, Donald


Fletcher, Eric
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mason, Roy
Watkins, Tudor


Forman, J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Millan, Bruce
Whitlock, William


Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Milne, Edward
Wigg, George


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn)
Monslow, Walter
Willey, Frederick


Ginsburg, David
Moody, A. S.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Goodhart, Philip
Morris, John
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gourlay, Harry
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Greenwood, Anthony
Oram, A. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Woof, Robert


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Owen, Will
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James(Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.



Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Mr. Ifor Davies and Mr. McCann.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil(Colne Valley)
Parker, John





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bishop, F. P.
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Aitken, W. T.
Bourne-Arton, A.
Cary, Sir Robert


Allason, James
Boyle, Sir Edward
Channon, H. P. G.


Arbuthnot, John
Braine, Bernard
Chataway, Christopher


Atkins, Humphrey
Brewis, John
Chichester-Clark, R.


Barber, Anthony
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Barter, John
Brooman-White, R.
Collard, Richard


Batsford, Brian
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cooke, Robert


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Cooper, A. E.


Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton
Bryan, Paul
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Bell, Ronald
Buck, Antony
Cordie, John


Berkeley, Humphry
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Corfield. F. V.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Burden, F. A.
Costain, A. P.


Biffen, John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Coulson, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Craddock, Sir Beresford


Bingham, R. M.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver




Currie, G. B. H.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rees, Hugh


Dance, James
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rees-Davies, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ronton, David


Deedes, W. F.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


de Ferranti, Basil
Kirk, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Digby, Simon wingfield
Kitson, Timothy
Rippon, Geoffrey


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Drayson, G. B,
Leavey, J. A.
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


du Cann, Edward
Leburn, Gilmour
Roots, William


Duncan, Sir James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcsle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Russell, Ronald


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Litchfield, Capt. John
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farey-Jones, F, W.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Sharples, Richard


Farr, John
Longbottom, Charles
Shaw, M.


Fell, Anthony
Loveys, Walter H.
Shepherd, William


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacArthur, Ian
Smithers, Peter


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McLaren, Martin
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Gibson-Watt, David
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gilmour, Sir John
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Speir, Rupert


Glover, Sir Douglas
McMaster, Stanley R.
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maddan, Martin
Stevens, Geoffrey


Godber, J, B.
Maginnis, John E.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Goodhew, Victor
Maitland, Sir John
Stodart, J. A.


Gower, Raymond
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Storey, Sir Samuel


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Marshall, Douglas
Studholme, Sir Henry


Green, Alan
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mawby, Ray
Talbot, John E.


Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tapsell, Peter


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mills, Stratton
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Morrison, John
Temple, John M.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Neave, Airey
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hay, John
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hendry, Forbes
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Osborne, John (Hallam)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradord, W.)


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Hobson, John
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Turner, Colin


Hocking, Philip N.
Partridge, E.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Holland, Philip
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hollingworth, John

van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hornby, R. P.
Peel, John
Vane, W. M. F.


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Percival, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hughes-Young, Michael
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Walker, Peter


Iremonger, T. L.
Pitt, Miss Edith
Wall, Patrick


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pott, Percivall
Ward, Dame Irene


Jackson, John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Webster, David


James, David
Prior, J. M. L.
Whitelaw, William


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Jennings, J. C.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Worsley, Marcus


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pym, Francis



Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ramsden, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Rawlinson, Peter
Mr. Gordon Campbell and


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmayne, Rt- Hon. Martin
Mr. Michael Hamilton.

It being after half-past Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question necessary to complete the Proceedings on Clause 1.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 240, Noes 169.

Division No. 55.]
AYES
[7.36 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Boyle, Sir Edward


Aitken, W. T.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Braine, Bernard


Allason, James
Bell, Ronald
Brewis, John


Arbuthnot, John
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Atkins, Humphrey
Biffen, John
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry


Barber, Anthony
Biggs-Davison, John
Brooman-White, R.


Barlow, Sir John
Bingham, R. M.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)


Barter, John
Bishop, F. P.
Browne, Percy (Torrington)


Batsford, Brian
Bourne-Arton, A.
Bryan, Paul




Buck, Antony
Hocking, Philip N.
Prior, J. M. L.


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Holland, Philip
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Burden, F. A.
Hollingworth, John
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hornby, R. P.
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pym, Francis


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ramsden, James


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Peter


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Iremonger, T. L.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Cary, Sir Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees, Hugh


Channon, H. P. G.
Jackson, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chataway, Christopher
James, David
Renton, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Jennings, J. C.
Ridsdale, Julian


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rippon, Geoffrey


Collard, Richard
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Cooper, A. E.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roots, William


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cordie, John
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Corfield, F. V.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Russell, Ronald


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Coulson, Michael
Kirk, Peter
Sharples, Richard


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Kitson, Timothy
Shaw, M.


Critchley, Julian
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Shepherd, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Leavey, J. A.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Curran, Charles
Leburn, Gilmour
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Currie, G. B. H.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smithers, Peter


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry
Lilley, F. J. P.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Deedes, W. F.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Speir, Rupert


de Ferranti, Basil
Litchfield, Capt. John
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E, M.
Longbottom, Charles
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, Walter H.
Stodart, J. A.


du Cann, Edward
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Duncan, Sir James
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Storey, Sir Samuel


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Studholme, Sir Henry


Elliott, R. W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Talbot, John E.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Tapsell, Peter


Farr, John
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fell, Anthony
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Finlay, Graeme
Maitland, Sir John
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Fisher, Nigel
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Temple, John M.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Marshall, Douglas
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gibson-Watt, David
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gilmour, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Thompson. Kenneth (Walton)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Godber, J. B.
Mills, Stratton
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Goodhart, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Morrison, John
Turner, Colin


Green, Alan
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Neave, Airey
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Gurden, Harold
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Vane, W. M. F.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Walker, Peter


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wall, Patrick


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Ward, Dame Irene


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Webster, David


Hay, John
Partridge, E.
Whitelaw, William


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hendry, Forbes
Percival, Ian
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Worsley, Marcus


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pilkington, Sir Richard



Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pitt, Miss Edith
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hirst, Geoffrey
Pott, Percivall
Mr. Peel and Mr McLaren.


Hobson, John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch





NOES


Ainsley, William
Benson, Sir George
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Albu, Austen
Blackburn, F.
Cliffe, Michael


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blyton, William
Collick, Percy


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Boardman, H.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Awbery, Stan
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Bowles, Frank
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Beaney, Alan
Boyden, James
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Deer, George


Bence, Cyril
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Delargy, Hugh


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dempsey, James







Diamond, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Dodds, Norman
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Donnelly, Desmond
Kenyon, Clifford
Roberta, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Driberg, Tom
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
King, Dr. Horace
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Rogers, C. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William


Evans, Albert
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Edward


Finch, Harold
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fletcher, Eric
MacColl, James
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McInnes, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Forman, J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
McLeavy, Frank
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Snow, Julian


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sorensen, R. W.


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Gourlay, Harry
Manuel, A. C.
Steele, Thomas


Greenwood, Anthony
Mapp, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Grey, Charles
Mason, Roy
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mellish, R. J.
Swain, Thomas


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Millan, Bruce
Swingler, Stephen


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Milne, Edward
Symonds, J. B.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Monslow, Walter
Thornton, Ernest


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Moody, A. S.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hannan, William
Morris, John
Timmons, John


Hayman, F. H.
Mulley, Frederick
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wade, Donald


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Oram, A. E.
Wainwright, Edwin


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor


Hilton, A. V.
Owen, Will
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Holman, Percy
Padley, W. E.
Whitlock, William


Holt, Arthur
Paget, R. T.
Wigg, George


Hoy, James H.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parker, John
Willey, Frederick


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pavitt, Laurence
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hunter, A. E.
Peart, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Pentland, Norman
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Prentice, R. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Woof, Robert


Janner, Sir Barnett
Probert, Arthur
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Jeger, George
Randall, Harry



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Redhead, E. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. McCann and Mr. Ifor Davies

Clause 2.—(RECALL OF NATIONAL SERVICE- MEN INTO ARMY SERVICE.)

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end to add:
or
(d) if he is undergoing or has been accepted for—

(i) a full-time educational course at a university, college, or comparable institution in the United Kingdom,
(ii) a full-time apprenticeship or articled clerkship or full-time instruction in a skilled trade or calling, or
(iii) a course of training comparable to any of the foregoing to fit him to join a profession or undertake a skilled occupation".

The wording of this Amendment is similar to that of the Amendments we have already discussed. Of course, the principle is quite different. I can best approach it by explaining my personal attitude to the group of Amendments moved on Clause 1 as compared with similar Amendments on Clause 2.
I was bitterly opposed to Clause 1. I regarded it as unfair. I regarded the introduction of selective service as the most inefficient and unfairest possible way of attempting to solve a military manpower problem from the worst possible angle. Therefore, I was against Clause 1 in principle and in detail.
When it comes to Clause 2, my position is different. I regard the Government's defence policy from 1957 onwards as wholly disastrous. I said so in April, 1957, and before 1957 when, from reports in the Press, one began to sense the way in which Government policy was shaping. It is not part of my duty to go over all the different arguments which I used then and which total up to "I told you so." We are now in the position that we are unable to carry out our obligations to N.A.T.O. We have not the forces which this country pledged its word to maintain on the Continent of Europe. We are incapable of carrying through even limited military operations. The


Government pat themselves on the back about Kuwait. The Kuwait operation was tantamount to going to B.O.A.C. and buying 3,000 air tickets. It was successful so long as it was not opposed. Our position on the Asian land mass is quite tenuous and we are in a humiliating position.
I was much interested in a letter written to the Daily Telegraph, last Saturday morning, by the hon. and gallant Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Captain Kerby), quoting from the N.A.T.O. Journal and what it thought about the lamentable position of this country from the defence point of view at the present time. I wish that the hon. and gallant Member were here, because I think that it would be far better if what he said in the Daily Telegraph was said on the Floor of the House on this or some other occasion. It is a fact that, having spent a fantastic amount in terms of money and having imposed on our young men compulsory military service, we are now switching to what is the basic principle of this country at the present time—expediency; that which is convenient is correct. Those are the principles on which we work.
When considering this Clause, I am in roughly the position that I was in in April, 1939, when the Conservative Government at that time, whose guts I hated and whom I despised, introduced compulsory service. I had just come out of the Army and I thought that, because of our lamentable foreign policy and the catastrophic happenings at Munich, compulsory National Service was absolutely essential. I was in a reverse position to some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. The more I despised the Government's foreign policy, the more sceptical I became of our military policy, and the more I was driven into the position of having to support desperate steps of this kind—unfair, inefficient and uncompromising. I have to adopt the same attitude now, because if I do not, I am brought face to face with the alternative.
It is one thing to break faith and hold men for six months; it is quite another to call men back to the Colours when Parliament has imposed an obligation of 31 years' Reserve service upon them. We are dealing with this category. In

Clause 2 we give the Minister power to recall to the Colours young men who have finished their Colour service and now have a Reserve liability of 3½ years. The House of Commons has given the Government that right, and the Government, driven into a corner and faced with the necessity of doing something as a result of having led the House and the country up the garden path on the question of an Army strength of 165,000, have taken this course.
I shall not oppose the Government on the Clause. They have been forced into this position, and although I consider this to be a lousy and dishonest Bill I cannot, in logic, oppose Clause 2, because I cannot face the consequences of asking youg men to serve in units which are under strength. During my service I was at the receiving end of a number of examples where the British Army was called upon to do that, and I should not be honest with myself or the Committee if I agreed to that arrangement. But we must also do the best we can for the young men who have done their two years' service and have gone back into civilian life. Even if we have put down the same Amendments on this Clause as we did on Clause 1 the arguments must be different.
There is yet another difference. The Amendment refers to young men who have the possibility of entering into:
a full-time educational course at a university, college, or comparable institution in the United Kingdom".
That is in the future; the men have not started their courses. If we impose upon the Secretary of State the obligation of exempting such a category of men who are still serving, we are saying to him, "This is a category with which we must deal as and when the time comes." We are dealing with a possibility under the terms of Clause 1, but with a similar Amendment to this Clause we are dealing with a certainty. If, at the time a man is selected to be recalled under Clause 2, he is actually undergoing or has been accepted for a full-lime course, it should follow that he should not be required to return to military service.
The fact that a man knows for certain, beyond any possibility of a wangle, puts the matter into quite another category. The Secretary of State does not have to search through the files of the Record


Office, or send signals to the Command asking for returns of numbers of men who have planned to undergo or who have been accepted for a course of full-time education. In this case, if the Secretary of State calls a man up and that man falls into any of the categories mentioned in the Amendment, the man can say. "I am not a starter, because of this and that." That is the second reason why the Amendment is different from those that we moved on Clause 1.
I tend to look at the matter from the point of view of its effect on the Army, but I realise that I must also have regard to its effect on the nation. We know that National Service is an unsettling business. At the beginning of their National Service many young men will have planned one thing while their parents may have hoped that they would want to do something else. As a result of two years' National Service, with all the stirring up of new interests and mixing with new friends, and with wider horizons, a good deal of travel, and the beneficent results of Army service—and there are some—many young men who started military service with one idea in their minds have quite another at the end of their service, when they are about 20 years old. This means a change of their plans, and a different career.
On the other hand, many young men go into the Army with no settled idea, and when they come out they sometimes find great difficulty in making up their minds what to do, and drift from one job to another. They take up many callings before they finally settle down.
But the category covered by the Amendment consists of those people who, having completed their two years' service, are prepared to make immediate financial sacrifices—to live on pocket money provided by their parents or what money they can gather from jobs they can do—on the one hand, and sacrifice leisure and the pursuit of agreeable hobbies, on the other, in order to further their studies. They are the serious-minded young men, who have done the best they can with their two years' service and are determined to put down roots. They should not be quite arbitrarily picked up from civilian Life and dumped back into the Army without any safeguards.
I appreciate the weaknesses as well as the strength of Army administration. It does its best. It does better than some of its detractors give it credit for. I have always believed that the staff work of the Army must be organised at a very high level in the modern world. But there are occasions when the Record Office, like all other human institutions, is fallible. Mistakes are made.
I wish the right hon. Gentleman's recruiting campaign well. I hope that at the end of the year he will be able to say that he does not need to exercise the powers given to him by the Clause. But let us suppose that things go from bad to worse, from the point of view of the Army. Let us suppose that, by some miracle, the Government manage to overcome the country's economic difficulties—or perhaps I ought to say that the country manages to overcome the economic difficulties imposed by the Government—and, as a result, trade begins to boom and a note of reality once again creeps into the optimistic speeches about recruiting made by hon. Members opposite, including the Secretary of State. Let us suppose that the gap begins to widen.
At the same time, Mr. Khrushchev may happen to make a speech, and the Government may say, very suddenly, "We must call up a number of chaps." A considerable number of men may then be called up. In those circumstances I am not prepared to forsake those young men who, having completed their two years' service and having gone back in civilian life, are shown by the actions they have taken to be serious-minded young men—the salt of the earth and the backbone of the country; the men from whom we will draw our teachers, scientists, accountants and, sometimes, even our doctors. These are the young men who have served their two years in their stride and are beginning to put down roots. I am not prepared to leave them to the tender mercies of the Record Office.
8.0 p.m.
That is why I attach much greater importance to this Amendment in its application to Clause 2 than I did to a similar Amendment as applied to Clause 1. In Clause I we are dealing with a man in the Army who may be retained. Such a man has a chance to


"squeal" to his commanding officer and to make his voice heard. He has all the machinery of redress which exists under the powers conferred by the Army Act. But the man who is back in civilian life is out of the running. He does not know what is to happen and suddenly catastrophe strikes in this way.
There is no difficulty, either in principle or for administrative reasons, which would prevent the Secretary of State from accepting this Amendment. I consider that it is a sensible Amendment. I might be expected to say that, but I have consulted others on the point. It is the minimum that we ought to impose on the Government, having in mind the great shortage in the teaching profession and in other professions and occupations for which a planned course of full-time study is necessary.
I hope that the Secretary of State will take a wide view. I hope that he will not look at the matter only from the point of view of the Army. I ask him—he is a kindly man and I am sure that he will—to use his imagination and to look at this matter from the point of view of the man who has done his two years' service, and also from the point of view of the needs and the wider interests of the community as a whole.
I also ask the right hon. Gentleman once again—this is the umpteenth time I have asked him, and I beg his forgiveness if I bore him, but I have to say it again—to bear seriously in mind the accidental, the fortuitous circumstance which may impose these great obligations on young men who happen to have served in the Army, while personnel in the Air Force and the Navy are completely exempt. There are also the 60,000 men who were released from any obligation at all, quite arbitrarily, by the Government. The present Lord Privy Seal, then Minister of Labour, in answer to a statement at the end of Question Time in this House, slipped this through because it was administratively and financially convenient to the Government at that time.
We have talked earlier in the debate about the position in which twins might find themselves. But what about triplets? What about quintuplets? Imagine five sons. One was in the

60,000 and was not called up at all. Two others served in the Navy and Air Force, respectively. One was medically unfit and the fifth went into the Army. They were all of equal intelligence. Let us see what would be their earning capacity at varying stages of their career from November, 1960, over the years. Imagine what a "friend" of the Army would be the fifth son who served and then, after he had come out of the Army, settled down and borrowed money from his other four brothers—or from the savings his parents had been able to accrue as the result of what the other four brothers had been able to do—in order to pursue a career as a teacher. Imagine that after he had been a year in the teaching profession he was suddenly pitched back into the Army for another six months—and this at a time when the Government are depending on good will in order to secure recruits for the Army!
For all those reasons; because of the consequences to individuals, the effect on the Army and on the community as a whole and, not least, in the interests of justice and fair play, I ask the Committee to support this Amendment.

Mr. Shinwell: I regard this Clause as the most vicious part of the Bill. I can understand the idea behind the provision in Clause 1, namely, that because of the possibility of some emergency, and in order to fill gaps in the Service, it is necessary to ask men already serving for a period of two years to allow themselves to be retained for another six months. There may be some logic in that. But I see no logic in this case, nor do I perceive any fairness. Once a man has served his two years and gone into civilian life he is to be hauled hack again to undertake another period of six months' service.
Does the Secretary of State know of any other N.A.T.O. country which has adopted this device? From what the right hon. Gentleman has already said, apparently he is not aware of any such country, and neither am I. Indeed, there are few N.A.T.O. countries which have adopted the two-year period of National Service. I believe that the United States has, but there a selective service system is operated and there are a large number of deferments and exemptions. It is difficult to ascertain


what is the method in France; whether the period is a year or 18 months; whether the men are called up in blocks or whether there are a great number of deferments and exemptions. In Belgium I believe the period is 12 months and the same applies to the Netherlands. In the Scandinavian countries associated with N.A.T.O.—Denmark and Sweden—I believe that the period is even shorter. At any rate, none of the N.A.T.O. countries has adopted the device, that once a man has served for a period, whether two years, 18 months or 12 months, he can be recalled—except, of course, in times of crisis and emergency; in short, when the country is likely to be going to war, and men have to be mobilised for that purpose.
In heaven's name, why does the Secretary of State embark on an adventure of this kind? During the Second Reading debate the right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that he might never make use of this method at all. I understand that that was his position at the time. He thought that there was no need for this provision. He required that some men still serving should be retained for another six months. But the right hon. Gentleman was not quite certain whether he ever intended to use the provisions in this Clause. So the whole position is in the air. It is vague and nebulous.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say exactly what he means. First, would he answer a question which I think is very important? Why should young men in this country, who have served their period of National Service, be brought back again to serve for another six months, when no other N.A.T.O. country has adopted this practice? I think that a question which must be answered. I see no reason why burdens should be imposed on the young men of this country which are not imposed on young men in other N.A.T.O. countries, unless there is some exceptional reason for doing so. Because of the Divisions which have taken place this afternoon, and the rejection of some of our proposals regarding remuneration and compensation, it is apparent that the men are to make considerable sacrifices. There is no doubt that if a man who has served his period of National Service is retained for a further

six months, hardship and sacrifice is likely to occur.
Surely the hardship is more severe for a man who, having served, returns to civilian life or embarks on a civilian career and is then brought back into the Army. In this matter the right hon. Gentleman should make it quite clear that he has a substantial reason far adopting this expedient. If he has not got one, I think he will have to agree to the Amendment which provides considerable exemptions for certain categories.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said that he (lid not propose to vote against Clause 2. I should have thought that as we voted against Clause 1 there was an even stronger case for voting against Clause 2. Of course my hon. Friend does not like the Bill at all and would have preferred a more effective system of selective service. Neither do I like the Bill, not because I want selective service or a return to conscription, but because I think that the right hon. Gentleman has as many men as he deserves. We do not want to waste any more men in the Service beyond the numbers available to the right hon. Gentleman.
If the riglht hon. Gentleman cannot accept this Amendment it seems that there is a stronger case for compensation. He and I had a controversy over the matter of pay for National Service men compared with pay for the Regulars. We are at loggerheads, but that is largely attributable to him. I think he must have regretted having sent the communication to me on that subject. I understand that his defence now is that he was dealing with average rates of pay I am not concerned whether they are average rates of pay or what they are. All I know is that there is a disparity and he should remove the disparity.
If he feels it necessary to ask men who have served two years and gone back into civilian life to come back for another six months, he ought to say to them, "We cannot afford to give you the civilian pay you were receiving, that is too much, but we shall see to it that, although you are a National Service man doing another six months, having been brought back to the Service and taken from a career an which you had embarked, you will get the same rate as


the Regular alongside whom you serve." That is fair enough.
The Secretary of State knows that in this matter I am a very reasonable person, because I have great confidence in the Army. I have not as much confidence in the innumerable Secretaries of State we have seen before us. I have no malice against the right hon. Gentleman. He is very courteous to hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I have no complaint against him in particular, but the Government have made a frightful blunder over this legislation. As I regard this Clause as the most vicious and vindictive, constituting a considerable hardship and in any event quite unnecessary, I beg the right hon. Gentleman either to withdraw it or to comply with the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley.

8.15 p.m.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to say that this Amendment is unnecessary.
I should have thought that certainly sub-paragraph (ii) ought to be unnecessary in the light of Clause 5, which deals with the reinstatement in civilian employment and refers conditions of the National Service Act, 1948, to this Bill. I should have thought that the question of
full-time apprenticeship or articled clerkship or full-time instruction in a skilled trade or calling
would be covered by Clause 5. It may be that sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii) may also be covered. There is perhaps a bigger reason than those I have mentioned why this Amendment should be unnecessary, if my right hon. Friend's remarks on Second Reading can be confirmed today. My right hon. Friend said on 27th November:
It is possible that we shall never have to operate this second measure, which is solely designed as an insurance against national need during the period of transition from conscription while the Regular Army will be at a low strength. I have good reason for saying this, because of the provisions of Clause 3, which is designed to create a new form of volunteer Reserve within the Territorial Army."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961, Vol. 650, c. 51.]
Of course, we shall be better able to judge of this when we have seen what response there is to the provisions of

Clause 3. My case is that the response will be very considerable, and the better it is the less likelihood there will be of this Clause having to be invoked. Probably most of us hope that it will not be invoked because we all prefer the volunteer to the conscript.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the hon. Member realise that this threat is hanging over the heads of a large number of men?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Yes. If the right hon. Gentleman will give me a little time I hope that I can reassure him on that point. Of course this is an obnoxious part of the Clause by which the commitments are intensified. It is not a new commitment because all men who have done their full-time National Service are obliged to do a part-time period on recall. My right hon. Friend had in mind that the likelihood of that power ever being used would be dependent on a proclamation. That is why I welcomed the Bill on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend was quite right in saying that there might be temporary periods of tension when it would be highly undesirable to have a proclamation but when, without a proclamation, we could not say that we were reasonably invoking powers for recalling part-time National Service men.
I hope that such periods of tension will not arise and, secondly, that if they do arise the provisions of Clause 3 will prove so successful that the provision of Clause 2 need never be invoked. Short of a situation arising in which we have to have a proclamation any way—a really serious one with the possibility of a major war developing—there is a lot to be said for having greater facility for calling up. This Bill does not create any new obligation in Clause 2. It merely intensifies the facility with which we can invoke that obligation. To that extent. naturally, we hope that these periods of tension will not arise, but a great deal must depend, first, on the numbers who potentially are capable of being called up under this Clause and, secondly, the number who will have been produced by Clause 3.
My right hon. Friend said on Second Reading that he did not expect to have to consider invoking Clause 2 until 1963 at the earliest. He said that by 1963


about 100,000 National Service men would be eligible for call-up under Clause 2, assuming that it be passed. If there is a continuation of the present trend of Army recruiting on a Regular basis and, in addition, there is a substantial response to Clause 3, I cannot see the likelihood of a great many of those 100,000 National Service men on part-time obligation being called up under the Clause. In fact, short of a general proclamation if a major catastrophe were impending, only a comparatively small fraction of the total would ever be called upon.
If that is so, the Amendment is unnecessary, because within that 100,000 we should be able to ensure, by ordinary administrative means without having to make it a statutory obligation, that we do not call upon the sort of people mentioned in the Amendment. Even if the situation were grave enough to consider calling up people in the categories mentioned in the Amendment but not sufficiently grave to justify a proclamation, I have the impression that the machinery for sorting out hardship cases will be at least as good—I believe that it will be a great deal better—as it ever was in the case of National Service and deferment a few years ago. The machinery which existed then ensured that there was the minimum interference with apprenticeships, university courses, and so on. Nothing that my right hon. Friend has said justifies one in supposing that under this scheme there will be less facility for airing hardships and grievances than there was in the case of applying for deferment from National Service. I think that there will be even greater facility than we dared to hope for.

Mr. Paget: That is not so. It may be true under Clause 1, but the object of Clause 2 is to be able to call men up quickly and quietly in an emergency, the type of emergency in which the Government do not want to create alarm in international relationships. In those circumstances, how can any appeal system work? It has to be done much too quickly. The point of the Amendment is that if the provision were written into the Bill it would take these men off the list.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Clause 5 (2) meets the point the hon. and learned Member has just made.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: I have been following the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) very carefully. Will he make it quite clear whether he is in favour of these exemptions if they are not covered by Clause 5?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I accept that there is always a prima facie case for seeing whether anybody indulging in the various activities mentioned in the Amendment should be called up. However, I do not believe that the list of activities in the Amendment is necessarily complete. If it is not complete, as I believe it may not be, it may be found that the Amendment would result, as the Amendments to Clause 1 would have resulted, in greater hardship being suffered by those who are not included in the Amendment.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: That applies to every exemption.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Of course it does. I accept that. This is the great danger of trying to make exemptions. One cannot legislate for everybody.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The hon. Member must be logical. Is he saying that he is against the exemptions in Clause 5?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Certainly not. If the hon. and learned Member is now saying that Clause 5 meets his point, there is no need for the Amendment. That is the point I have been trying to make. I believe that the provisions contained in Clause 5 cover, as far as we can effectively cover them whilst retaining sensible administrative power, the very cases the hon. and learned Member has in mind.

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Member must agree that if it is written into the Bill it removes the element of doubt for a large number of people whom he does not think should be called up. If he is right in his view that additional exemptions mean additional hardship, he should argue that every single ex-National Service man from the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force should be recalled for six months.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I hope that the hon. Member will not take any argument to its logical absurdity, because that is


what he is attempting to do. In this great desire, which the Committee rightly expressed when Clause 1 was being considered and is apparently again expressing on Clause 2, to ensure that the minimum of injustice is caused, there is a real danger of us all losing sight of the real object of the Bill. The real object of the Bill is to ensure that our military strength does not fall dangerously low. If we are to ensure that every possible person who might conceivably suffer the slightest injustice is excluded from the provisions of the Bill, we shall not achieve the object of the Bill.
As I made clear on Second Reading and in our deliberations on Clause 1, greatly as I deplore the fact that we have not been able to get a sufficient number of recruits to avoid the necessity for the whole Bill, once one accepts the fact that a situation exists which demands immediate action—I believe that such a situation does exist and does demand immediate action—we must not do so much to cabin, crib and confine my right hon. Friend as to make it impossible for him to achieve the object of the Bill.
Some years ago I heard the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) round on one of his hon. Friends in the course of a debate on a Service Estimate and say, "What do we want the Armed Forces for? It is not the same as the Welfare State. The object is not to ensure that every possible little injustice is catered for. The object is to ensure that we have efficient armed forces". I entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member then. I only wish that he were expressing the same sentiments a little more tonight.
It is important that we maintain a proper balance in our minds the whole way through. Clause 5 covers all the points which need covering, if in fact, as I believe was the case, those provisions were adequate when National Service was in full swing. For these reasons, I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it unnecessary to accept the Amendment but will ensure that where-ever possible the machinery which operated when we were calling up people under the National Service Act, 1948, is not only continued but improved.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: It is unfortunate that when we use the words "national service" in the House we almost invariably mean military service in one or other of the Armed Forces of the Crown. I believe that national service is something far wider than that.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that the National Service Act, 1948, was passed by a Labour Government.

Mr. Ede: I know it was; I was a supporter of it. I joined the Army on the day I was 17. Every male member of my family was expected to do so, because my maternal grandfather and his two brothers were among the earliest volunteers to join up in 1859. While I do not agree with the hereditary principle in every respect, I think that a conception of national service ought to be inculcated in every family—and something more than mere military service.
We once again get to the question of bodies. The Army wants bodies. But other activities in national life want 'bodies, and if we are to have a real system of national service, we ought to try to ensure that no one form of national service is able to poach on the other forms.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said that the Clause can be operated without a proclamation. Believe me, if it is ever operated, the morning after the first notices go out it will be no secret in this country or in any other country where the Foreign Office may be negotiating and wishes to make a display of force to show that if it does not get its way trouble will follow.
I do not believe that, in some way or other, people called up in this way will appear at barracks and depots without anyone knowing except the persons who go and the non-commissioned officers who are there to receive them. We may be quite certain that if ever the Clause is operated this country will be in a very serious position. There might be an occasion—I do not think it is very likely—when it would be preferable not to issue a proclamation to get something short of 100,000 men, but do not let us think that it will not be known that a


serious position has arisen and that friends and foes will not take this action into consideration.
We have always had selective service under every conscription Measure in this country. There have always been long lists of exemptions. On occasion I have opposed certain exemptions. There was the business with regard to school masters. I have always doubted whether it was wise to exempt some of the school masters who were exempted. When I went to the Ministry of Education in 1940, I had to go down to the hon. Gentleman's constituency where two school masters had been exempted from military service because they had said that if only one had stroked Hitler the right way there would have been no emergency. The mothers of the boys going to that grammar school objected to sending their boys there while their husbands were away on military service. Exemption gives rise to all sorts of difficulties, and I think that it ought to be clearly defined and that we ought to be able to justify it.
In the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman imagines in justification of the Clause, I do not see, unless a clear statement is made beforehand, how young men in the categories mentioned in the Amendment will be certain what their position will be in the event of the Clause being brought into operation. I am not quite sure how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to operate it. I understand that he estimates that there will be 100,000 men liable for service under the Clause. Will he say "All the men whose initials are from A to K will be called up for a start", or "Everybody who is liable will be called up"? He might think that the emergency did not require quite as many as that.
The calling-up of 100,000 men from all sorts of industries and professions will create some difficulty in the industrial and commercial world. We are now dealing in this Amendment with the type of men who in many walks of life are almost certain to be regarded as performing national service better in time of war in their ordinary occupations rather than in the Army. We suggest that these men, who have undertaken and are undergoing training for essential and valuable occupations, should not have

their courses of preparation for their life's work interrupted by the operation of Clause 2.
I can see no reason why this should not be accepted on the ground that they are equipping themselves for a life's work in national service in the occupations which they have chosen. I know that if the right hon. Gentleman has the power to call up their bodies, he will find plenty of military advisers in high ranks in The Army who will want all the bodies they can get. I would have thought, in view of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said, that the right hon. Gentleman could give some assurance with regard to the form of national service that these men are undertaking when they commit themselves to the courses of study and apprenticeships which are envisaged in the Clause.
I admit that if we got into very serious trouble the right hon. Gentleman would not be able to avoid a proclamation. I am not at all sure that we ought to entrust the Government with the power under this Clause by which the Foreign Office and the military can get the possession of bodies of men when they do not think the issue of a proclamation is necessary. If this means that the Government are so uncertain of their voluntary recruiting after this Bill comes into operation that, merely to fill up the Army in time of peace, the right hon. Gentleman can descend on some of these men and recall them for military service for six months, I think they are adopting a quite wrong policy. If they believe that voluntary recruiting is to be so ineffective when this Bill becomes an Act that they are going to have these huge gaps in the Army that only can justify the calling up of these men in time of peace, I think it is a policy that this Committee should not support.
I hope that I have made it quite clear that, personally, I do not regard military service as other than a proper calling for people who have no conscientious objection to it. The House of Commons has always made elaborate safeguards for people who can prove that they have a genuine conscientious objection to it, but, where they have not, I think that, as I was taught in my own home, preparation for military service ought to be part of a youth's early life.
It should be taken at a time when it does not seriously interfere with his preparation for other forms of national service.
I do not believe that the operation of this Clause will achieve any of the purposes which I have so far heard advanced in support of it. I cannot believe that if the right hon. Gentleman serves notices on any substantial part of 100,000 men, people at home and the people abroad will not regard it as a significant military step, whether to maintain the numbers in the Army in peacetime, or to prepare for an emergency that appears to be just beyond the horizon.

Mr. Profumo: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervened at this stage, because time marches on. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in his speech on this Amendment talked about the weight which hangs over these men after they have left the Army. I start on this point because I think it would be wrong to imagine that some new threat is created by this Bill. There has, of course, always been, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the obligation of part time National Service during which men could be called back, and so, to that extent, the provision has always been there.
I must be careful neither to delay the Committee too long nor to stray out of order, but the right hon. Gentleman asked why we were doing this. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) to a great extent answered, I think, why we feel it right to have this Clause in the Bill. This is the second stage of the arrangements which we feel it necessary to make in case of an emergency.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) spoke about this Measure as if it were something we were doing to avoid the declaration of a state of emergency, and he quite rightly said that we should not be able to keep that a secret, and that we should not be able to do this in a hole and corner way. I quite accept that.
It might well be that, if in a year's time or so tension developed to such an

extent that any Government would feel it necessary to declare a national emergency, all would get called up. The reason for the provision in the Bill is what, when I was at the Colonial Office, used to be called the twilight problem—a situation not a state of emergency but looking as though it might lead to one and where, by extending the deterrent of manpower, a situation between nations which might lead to an actual threat of a shooting war might possibly be avoided. I do not ask the Committee to pronounce on this. I merely mean that we see the possibility that events might so develop that it might be necessary for a short period to call up, not a large number of people, but some, to strengthen the deterrent of manpower in, say, B.A.O.R., for a period, and such an action might well ease tension.
I have explained this particularly because, of course, if recruiting goes well, once we get the 165,000 people and their number mounts, it might be we could meet that problem with the resources we should then have, but we still have got to face the fact that Clause 1 really only buys time. Clause 1 of the Bill allows us in a situation where there is in Europe in the present time to see that B.A.O.R. does not run down during the period of our recruiting. After Clause 1 has come to an end and people are let out of National Service there could well be a build-up of a' period of tension when we might—and here I must be careful not to get out of order, for Clause 3 also comes into this—do what is here provided for in this Clause 2.
I have already said on Second Reading that it may not be necessary to do this, but it is an assurance we want in the Bill, because there might be a national emergency, in which case we might have to call up a lot of people, or there might be a twilight problem, in which case we would not need to call up large numbers.
They would be called up in the categories necessary to fill in what might be called holes or gaps in areas, where tension had built up. This is the explanation of why we should want to do it—

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: The Secretary of State should make up his mind. First, he says that there is


no new threat, but if there is no new threat he does not need the power. If there is to be an additional means of call-up, he cannot get away with saying that there is no new threat for the ex-National Service man concerned. What, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman has said in his somewhat roundabout way is that people will be called up to make up deficiencies in recruiting.

Mr. Profumo: No—the hon. Member smiles at his hon. Friends as though he had made a point, but I do not think that it is a very good point. There has always been a statutory obligation here. It is nothing new that a National Service man should be asked to accept the obligation to be recalled. What is new is something in Clause 3, which is that if someone finds it a very great burden on his life he can apply to join the Ever-readies and avoid that burden, and be paid handsomely for it.
Perhaps I may now address myself to the Amendment, which would, in effect, give a very wide area of exemption from recall to men undergoing instruction and education. As I explained on 19th December last, I feel unable to accept Amendments exempting particular categories of men on hardship grounds. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee in going over all that again, but if any hon. Member wishes to refresh his memory on that point he only has to refer to columns 1251 and 1252 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for 19th December, 1961, in which I tried to give an explanation. We have also discussed this question in other days on an earlier Clause.
Were a sudden tension to build up, it might be unavoidable to call up men at pretty short notice—a point made by the hon. Member for Dudley himself. Even so, I should like the Committee to know that I am making arrangements for the grant of up to 56 days' postponement to be made in cases of men involved in circumstances of great difficulty, so as to give time for proper investigations to be made.
This is how I would propose to deal with that situation, even in such circumstances. If a man were recalled, it would be possible for him to get 56 days' postponement, during which time the sort of case that the hon. Member for Dudley

and other hon. Members have in mind could be investigated. If the situation permitted some advance notice of call-up to be given, warning notices would be sent out containing advice—and one hon. Member asked me to give this undertaking—on how to appeal against recall.
If a man thought that he had solid grounds for exemption from recall—and the type of case we have in this Amendment would certainly qualify for examination—we would immediately consider the case and, if possible, exempt any case which was properly established according to our criteria. I believe that is the only way, and the only practical way to deal with the issue.
Perhaps I should add that if this situation were to arise the same procedures as I have outlined for people wishing to appeal under Clause 1 would apply also under this Clause. A difficult case, based on compassionate or hardship grounds, would be referred to a committee such as I have spoken of—

Mr. Wigg: To whom would the power to grant 56 days' deferment be delegated; to the Officer-in-Charge, Records, or whom?

Mr. Profumo: I am still considering the question of delegated power in detail, but I had it in mind that the Officer-in-Charge, Records would have power to grant the postponement himself. We would send a notice telling the chap, "You are called up, but if you feel you have a solid case you should write to the Officer-in-Charge, Records." The man would not have to go through any complicated War Office machinery. I think that is the only way to guard against something that is in the minds of hon. Members—

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: A pretty long twilight!

Mr. Profumo: No, I do not think so. If one wants to be fair to people, one must make some such arrangement as this. If someone was granted 56 days' postponement and it took a long time to examine the case, we would have to call up some one else. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would like—

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: What I have in mind relates to the 165,000, about


which the right hon. Gentleman has not yet answered satisfactorily. All this rather goes to indicate that he wants this provision in order to make up the 165,000, which was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) a moment ago. Would the Minister make it absolutely clear whether he proposes to use the provision for that purpose, or merely for emergency purposes?

Mr. Profumo: No. I have made this point clear. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was here on Second Reading. This is not a ruse to try to get over-recruiting. It might well be that we shall reach—and I hope we shall—165,000 men by 1st January, 1963. This is our minimum target, and we must try to build up on that. During the period of build-up after the 165,000 figure has been reached and after the last National Service man has been released after serving his extra six months, if there is a period of twilight one must have the power to supplement one's armed forces until one has reached the proper number which we consider to be commensurate with our obligations. That is why I referred the hon. and learned Gentleman to my Second Reading speech, because I tried on that occasion to elaborate this point.

Mr. Wigg: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not trying to mislead the Committee? The only thing I can think is that he is trying to work this confidence trick on himself, for the target of 165,000 has gone. We need not discuss it.

Mr. Profumo: Why?

Mr. Wigg: According to the right hon. Gentleman's own statement, it has gone. He said so. It took a little while for him to say so, but he said that the figure he hopes to get by the end of 1962—National Service men and Regulars—is about 170,000. The right hon. Gentleman said that on 19th December last. On Second Reading I pressed him to give hon. Members a figure, but he failed to do so. Now we learn from him that it will be about 170,000. We do not know what the "X" figure will be, and the right hon. Gentleman will simply call up a few more or less so that "X" fits in with the current Army

Council view. What is the complaint? Is the complaint made by the Committee of Estimates; that the figure of 15,000 men to be held was not given in the Bill?

Mr. Profumo: The figure of 165,000 men is still and always has been the minimum target for which Her Majesty's Government have been aiming by the beginning of 1963. The figure of 170,000 is the one I tried to give the hon. Member for Dudley as being that which might be in the Army by the end of this year before we let the National Service men out. That is to say, a calculation of the build-up plus National Service men.
In view of the timetable Motion I do not wish to delay the Committee. I am trying to answer the question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) who asked what this was for. The answer is that it is in order to have an insurance in case, next year, a situation arose which we could not match by the number of people we had in the Army—that is, without having a national emergency in which case it would be necessary to call up large numbers of men.
If, by that time, we have enough Ever-readies recruited and Regular recruiting is going well I do not believe that this Clause need necessarily come into it. I must choose my words carefully. Anyone in my position and with the responsibilities that I have should have powers should it be necessary to take this action for the security of the country.

Mr. Paget: This is a point which should be made clear. I understand that by January, 1963, the right hon. Gentleman expects to get, by voluntary methods, about 165,000 men and that that is what the trend looks like. The right hon. Gentleman needs 15,000 more than that. That is what I understand the Bill to be about.

Mr. Profumo: Not at all.

Mr. Paget: Then what is the Bill about?

Mr. Profumo: The hon. and learned Gentleman had better wait until he has heard my comments and then make his own speech, because he may, inadvertently muddle the Committee more. I


did not say anything about 180,000 men. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will read my Second Reading speech. What I clearly said was this. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman is understanding what I am trying to explain to him. I said nothing about 180,000 men. I merely said that if things go well with 165,000 and a buildup of our regular recruiting, we may never need these.

Mr. Paget: But—

Mr. Profumo: It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman saying "but". It is perfectly clear. I am answering the Amendment and I wish to address myself to the point that the hon. Member for Dudley made. I suggest that this is the only practical procedure in this situation. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to listen to this, because it is important from the point of view of the Amendment.
It would be impossible, except in the widest terms, to define those pursuits which could qualify for this sort of exemption. The terms as quoted in the Amendment are so wide as to permit of a very considerable abuse indeed, and I doubt whether a description could be drawn up. There was none in the original National Service Act. There was never an attempt to define these things, and I am satisfied with the wisdom of that decision. Therefore, for all these reasons, I cannot accept the Amendment. I am convinced that the system we have in mind could work perfectly fairly and will safeguard the sort of cases that the hon. Member for Dudley has in mind.

Mr. Paget: May I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what he said during the Committee stage on 7th December:
I think we shall have to retain something like 15,000 men all told, the whole way through the next six months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 1607.]
That is not in order to get the 165,000. Without this Bill we shall get that.

Mr. Profumo: I thought for a moment that I was hoist with my own HANSARD, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has not got his brief right. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that what I was saying there related to Clause 1.

What I said was that I thought we would probably have to retain about 15,000 people in order to keep, in this year, the number of people in B.A.O.R. at the level which I thought was commensurate with what I believe to be a threat in Europe at this time. All through that period we hope to be building up our regular recruitment.
If we get to 165,000 people, and unless the situation deteriorates still further, then with these National Service men able to come out at the end of their six months extra, we may well be all right for quite a period while we are building up our Regular forces; but if a situation develops, like it did last August, for a short period we might want to call upon some readily trained men, and it might be in those circumstances that we should want to use these people or, what I should very much like to do. we should call on some "Ever-readies" when we have formed this voluntary body.
This is as clear as anybody can put it, and I do not think that what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said has made any change in the situation compared with what I have said in my speech.

Mr. Mulley: I think that the Minister's speech may at least have done one thing. It may have persuaded my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that perhaps it will not be so unwise to vote against Clause 2 after all. In what I think we can only call one of the right hon. Gentleman's twilight periods we have him showing extreme reluctance to explain why he will not accept a very simple and reasonable Amendment
9.0 p.m.
In view of the restrictions under which we are debating this Measure, I do not want to go too much into the general position. Already, my hon. and right hon. Friends have exposed the Secretary of State's demand to have this Clause in the Bill for what it is. He asks the House of Commons for unprecedented powers, yet he has been exceedingly evasive in answering the very clear and pointed questions put to him about what it is he wants the powers for and how he will operate them. Although it has been conceded that the categories of persons which the Amendment is


designed to exempt are persons who ought to be exempted, since, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), there are other kinds of national service apart from military service, the Secretary of State refuses to put words of this kind in the Bill.
Already, although this may not have been so when the National Service Acts were first formulated, there have been practices whereby people exactly of the kind mentioned in these three categories have been given deferment of Service under call-up. If in the national interest it was thought right, as I think it was right, to defer these people during their training, surely, now that they have already done two years' training, they ought to be allowed to complete their courses of education, training and so forth. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that he would not call people up in the middle of the academic year, just before an apprentice was to take a craft examination, and so forth. The fact is that, unless words of this kind are written into the Bill, no one will have any confidence that such things will not be done.
I will be frank with the right hon. Gentleman. We do not trust this Government. We are not satisfied with his statement that he will do this by administrative means. We cannot take at its face value what has been said because we distrust this Government altogether. We can see no reason why, if the words we have suggested are not satisfactory, the Secretary of State, if he intends to exempt these people or not call them up at short notice, should not on Report bring forward a form of words embodying the principle which has been applied by the Ministry of Labour in regard to call-up over the years.
Is the Secretary of State really saying that battalions are short-manned in Germany and, in the event of an emergency, he must call people out of Cambridge University, out of training colleges and out of apprenticeships to man them? Does he really believe today, in his twilight period, that to meet a particular emergency he will have time to call all these people up, give them 56 days in which to appeal, provide for deferment and the rest of it? Is that the sort of situation he has in mind?

Surely, all military thinking over the years has laid emphasis on forces in being. Does he think that the people involved here will make the difference between giving security to this country or not?
I thought that the Secretary of State's further remark, when pressed, was thoroughly unsatisfactory. If people do not like it, he says, if the whole of their career is being sacrificed, if they have not got into a training college or if they are not allowed to go to university, having already done their two years, because of this new threat—it is a new threat and it is not the same as the existing situation because otherwise the Clause would not be necessary at all—then they can join the "Ever-Readies" and get £150 a year. Is that his philosophy now?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said, this Clause is by far the most vicious part of the Bill. Not only is the Bill and this Clause in particular extremely unfair, but the Government have been so rigid that they will not even allow us to make a marginal improvement in it.
Although, we do not want to take up time with Divisions, in view of the restrictions under which we are placed, I hope very much that, because of the very unsatisfactory reply we have had from the Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley will press the matter to a Division.

Mr. Wigg: I wish to return to what the Secretary of State told us and the figures with which he has tried to bemuse himself and the Committee. Will he look at the Seventh Special Report from the Estimates Committee on the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum to the Army Reserve Bill, which, as I have already told the Committee, was quite fortuitously published on the afternoon of the day the House broke up for the Recess? It contains these words:
On 7th December the Secretary of State for War was able to inform the Committee of the whole House that ' something like 15,000 men ' would be retained under Clause 1. Your Committee cannot understand why this information and an estimate of expenditure based upon it was not given in the Memorandum.
This was not a Committee composed of hon. Members from this side. There


was one Member from this party and the rest were from the party opposite. The Chairman was a distinguished member of the Conservative Party. After hearing the expert witnesses from the Treasury and the War Office, that was the Committee's conclusion. It could not understand it and neither can I could not at the time and I cannot now.
On Second Reading I asked a specific question. Earlier I had gone to the Leader of the House, who received me with great courtesy and kindness, and I raised with him something which still puzzles me. I have a record of what the reserve strengths are. We have spent one day on Second Reading and three days in Committee and we had a debate on the Financial Resolution, but we have never yet been told what the reserve strengths are. I do not understand how anyone can intelligently discuss the organisation and deployment of the reserve forces without knowing what the establishments and strengths are. However, it seems that by some miracle it can be done.
On Second Reading I asked the Secretary of State what those figures were. It would have been arrogant and impertinent if I had asked him to put them in the Bill. I asked what targets he was aiming at but I did not get a reply. On 7th December the Secretary of State said:
I have been asked how many men we shall have at the end of 1962, and if the hon. Member for Dudley has done the sum his answer is not quite right.
It is not, according to the right hon. Gentleman's argument. If he was holding 15,000 and was going to get 165,000, the answer would be 180,000 and that meant that we needed no explanation because we all knew what the Bill was about. However, he went on to say:
We shall have about 170,000 left in the Army at the end of next year, of whom about 10,000 will National Service men."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 1607.]
On Second Reading the Secretary of State explained that the Bill was because of the Berlin crisis. However, in the Gracious Speech the Prime Minister gave another explanation. He said that the British Army of the Rhine was out of balance. That is a devastating admission for the Prime Minister of a Conservative Party, because there is a galaxy of military talent on the benches opposite, all its representatives being here today.

The Prime Minister said that the British Army of the Rhine, the spear point of defence in a cold war, was out of balance. That did not trouble the Prime Minister. He went off and shot a few birds.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Norman Hulbert): There is nothing in the Amendment about the Army being out of balance.

Mr. Wigg: No, but that is the reason given by the Prime Minister. I agree that it has nothing to do with the Bill, but that is not my fault but the Prime Minister's. The Prime Minister told us that the reason for the Bill was that the Army was out of balance. I know that it is nonsense, but that is what she said. On Second Reading the Secretary of State said that it was Berlin.
Today the right hon. Gentleman gave another reason. He said that it was to bring the British Army of the Rhine up to strength. I have recited the figures and I will not repeat them. I know that it is out of balance—the Prime Minister told us that—and we also know that the Secretary of State still pins his hopes on his recruiting. However, we know something else. Two months after he ceased to be Minister of Defence, Viscount Head said that the target on which the Army was planning was 182,000 men. We also know that for political reasons they dared not say that to either the Army or the country.
One year after the 1957 White Paper the target was said to be 165,000. Time marches on. The point was reached when there was a gap of 15,000 between the figure that the Army had been planning on and the figure it was to get. The Secretary of State for War wants to keep that knowledge from the Committee. It is a deadly secret. If I dared to mention this figure outside the House of Commons I presume that under the Official Secrets Acts I should find myself in Bow Street.
If this figure of 15,000 is added to the figure which the Government have been saying they want, and which the Select Committee on Estimates got out via the Treasury, we get to the figure of 180,000, which Viscount Head said was the required figure. This was a devastating admission and it meant that in the Conservative Party, which is forever paying


lip-service to patriotism, there were at that time some hon. Gentlemen who were concerned about the defence of this country and not merely with what their majority would be at the next by-election.
Times have changed. Only two or three hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned to challenge the Secretary of State for War, and what the Amendment does is to reveal once again what we all know, that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations ought to be impeached.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: I have never left it, Sir Norman. If I am out of order, it is only because I am following the Secretary of State for War. If he gives the Committee figures with which he has bemused himself, it is my duty to expose him by referring to what he and the Prime Minister have said. The fact is that on a simple Amendment it suits the right hon. Gentleman to play around with the irrelevant figures of 15,000 and 165,000. I have not made a virtue of my memory. I merely remind the Committee once again that some of us at least can read the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, even though they were made a month ago.

Mr. John Morris: I am concerned about the Amendment because of the Minister's confusing speech, and perhaps he would clear up two points. Do I understand that this Clause will be used only if what the right hon. Gentleman called a twilight type of crisis occurs? Secondly, is it the case that the Clause will not be used to make up deficiencies in the 165,000, or deficiences in a particular class? To put it another way, if there were no twilight type of crisis, and if the figure fell below 165,000, would this Clause be used?

Mr. Profumo: If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech today in conjunction with my speech on Second Reading he will be under no misapprehension about the scope of the Clause.

9.15 p.m.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman's statement is that at one stage he gave an answer which I thought clearly showed that the Clause would not be used to make the figure up to 165,000. Unfortunately, in answer to an intervention later, he gave the opposite impression.
My hon. Friend has asked two vital questions which are easy to answer. The right hon. Gentleman could give the answers without taking up much of the Committee's time. All that we want are clear answers. First, will this Clause be used in any circumstances except for providing troops when an emergency occurs by reason of Russian action or action on the other side of the Iron Curtain—what the Minister calls the twilight condition—and, secondly, will it be used to make up the 165,000 in case of deficiency?

Mr. Profumo: I understand what the hon. and learned Member is saying. I have done my best to explain the general circumstances under which we envisage that this Clause might be used. But no Minister, in a passage of a Bill through Parliament, could possibly tie himself specifically to a legal definition. I have done my best to try to help the Committee, but I am not prepared—nor would the hon. and learned Gentleman be—to tie myself to some legalistic definition as to how the Clause may work. I can go no further than I have gone, and when hon. Members read what I have said I am sure that they will be quite happy.

Mr. Mulley: The Minister is asking for quite unprecedented powers in peace time and he should be a little more forthcoming in answering our questions and in giving definite reasons why the Amendment cannot be accepted from the point of view either of its wording or its general principles. If he is not prepared to do that I ask the Committee to divide.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 150, Noes 216.

Division No. 56.]
AYES
[9.16 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Beaney, Alan


Albu, Austen
Awbery, Stan
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Bence, Cyril




Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Holt, Arthur
Randall, Harry


Benson, Sir George
Hoy, James H.
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reynolds, G. W.


Blyton, William
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Boardman, H.
Hunter, A. E.
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St.Pancras.N.)


Bowles, Frank
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Boyden, James
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jeger, George
Short, Edward


Cliffe, Michael
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Collick, Percy
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, Clifford
Skeffington, Arthur


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, George
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Deer, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, Julian


Delargy, Hugh
Loughlin, Charles
Sorensen, R. W.


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Diamond, John
MacColl, James
Spriggs, Leslie


Dodds, Norman
McInnes, James
Steele, Thomas


Donnelly, Desmond
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mapp, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Finch, Harold
Mason, Roy
Symonds, J. B.


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mellish, R. J.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Millan, Bruce
Thornton, Ernest


Forman, J. C.
Milne, Edward
Timmons, John


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Monslow, Walter
Wade, Donald


Galpern, Sir Myer
Moody, A. S.
Wainwright, Edwin


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Watkins, Tudor


Gourlay, Harry
Mulley, Frederick
Whitlock, William


Greenwood, Anthony
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wigg, George


Grey, Charles
Oram, A. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas
Willey, Frederick


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Owen, Will
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Parker, John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hamilton, William (west Fife)
Pavitt, Laurence
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hannan, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Woof, Robert


Hayman, F. H.
Peart, Frederick
Wyatt, Woodrow


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pentland, Norman
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hll, J. (Midlothian)
Prentice, R. E.



Hilton, A. V.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Holman, Percy
Probert, Arthur
Mr. McCaan and Mr. Ifor Davies.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Channon, H. P. G.
Gilmour, Sir John


Allason, James
Chataway, Christopher
Glover, Sir Douglas


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Chichester-Clark, R.
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Arbuthnot, John
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Godber, J. B.


Atkins, Humphrey
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Goodtrart, Philip


Barlow, Sir John
Collard, Richard
Gower, Raymond


Barter, John
Cooke, Robert
Grant, Rt. Hon. William


Batsford, Brian
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Cordie, John
Green, Alan


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Corfield, F. V.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bell, Ronald
Costain, A. P.
Gurden, Harold


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Berkeley, Humphry
Curran, Charles
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Currie, G. B. H.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Biffen, John
Dance, James
Harvey, Sir Arthur vere (Macclesf'd)


Biggs-Davison, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bingham, R. M.
Deedes, W. F.
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bishop, F. P.
de Ferranti, Basil
Hay, John


Bourne-Arton, A.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Boyle, Sir Edward
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Hendry, Forbes


Braine, Bernard
Drayson, G. B.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.


Bromley-Davenport.Lt.-Col.SirWalter
du Cann, Edward
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hn. Charles (Luton)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Duncan, Sir James
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Brooman-White, R.
Elliot, capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Elliott, R. W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hobson, John


Bryan, Paul
Farr, John
Hocking, Philip N.


Buck, Antony
Fell, Anthony
Holland, Philip


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Finlay, Graeme
Hollingworth, John


Burden, F. A.
Fisher, Nigel
Hornby, R. P.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hughes-Young, Michael


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Gibson-Wait, David
Hutchison, Michael Clark







Iremonger, T. L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Smithers, Peter


James, David
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Speir, Rupert


Jennings, J. C.
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Partridge, E.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peel, John
Storey, Sir Samuel


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Percival, Ian
Studholme, Sir Henry


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Talbot, John E.


Kirk, Peter
Pitman, Sir James
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Kitson, Timothy
Pitt, Miss Edith
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Leavey, J. A.
Pott, Percivall
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Powell, Rt- Hon. J. Enoch
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Prior, J. M. L.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Loveys, Walter H.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


MacArthur, Ian
Pym, Francis
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


McLaren, Martin
Ramsden, James
Turner, Colin


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Rawlinson, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Tweedsmuir, Lady


McMaster, Stanley R.
Rees, Hugh
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maddan, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vane, W. M. F.


Maginnis, John E.
Renton, David
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Maitland, Sir John
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Marshall, Douglas
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker, Peter


Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Rippon, Geoffrey
Wall, Patrick


Mawby, Ray
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Ward, Dame Irene


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Webster, David


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Roots, William
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Mills, Stratton
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Montgomery, Fergus
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Woodhouse, C. M.


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Russell, Ronald
Woollam, John


Morrison, John
Scott-Hopkins, James
Worsley, Marcus


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Sharples, Richard



Neave, Airey
Shaw, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Mr. Whitelaw and




Mr. Michael Hamilton.

Mr. Reynolds: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36 at the end to add:
(4) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give to any persons to be recalled under this section as much notice as possible having regard to the nature of the emergency necessitating the recall and where time allows any person so recalled shall be informed that he may appeal against the recall on the grounds that it would inflict serious hardship on himself or on some other person or that it would cause undue inconvenience to some service or business of national importance and where it is not possible to provide time for such an appeal before recall then such person on recall shall be informed that he can apply for release on these grounds.
The Committee must realise that, due to the operation of the guillotine Motion and the timetable to which we must adhere, our proceedings have rather more than a certain element of farce about them. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary must realise that they are being enabled to get away with refusals to give information and with the provision of a type of information which the Committee would never be prepared to accept because of the guillotine Motion and the timetable with which we are forced to comply.
We have had a complete change round—although the Secretary of State intervened and denied it—of the reasons for the provisions in Clause 2. During the Second Reading debate and during earlier debates on this matter my hon. Friends and myself were given the impression that the provisions in this Clause were primarily for use in an emergency. Now the right hon. Gentleman has given the impression to many of us that these provisions would be needed, or might be needed, irrespective of any question of an emergency—primarily during the so-called twilight period—in order to retain B.A.O.R. at something like reasonable strength.
From that concept, as well as because of the possibility of recalls under the provisions in Clause 2 in the case of an emergency, we come to this Amendment, which proposes that the Secretary of State shall give to any person to be recalled as much notice as possible having regard to the nature of the emergency. One visualises that if suddenly something occurred like the situation in Kuwait there would not be much time to give notice. On the other hand, in


a situation of gradually increasing tension such as that which resulted in the erection of the wall between East and West Berlin, a fair amount of notice could be given. The wall was built over a long period of time. One realises that it is difficult, if not impossible, to lay down any set period of notice to be provided for persons liable for recall. But one—

Sir D. Glover: Would not it be true to say that in the case of the Berlin situation the tension grew rapidly and that the erection of the wall represented a solidification of it?

Mr. Reynolds: The actual erection of the wall came rapidly. Despite the plans that had been made, our intelligence did not seem to inform the Government, or, if the Government were informed, they were not prepared to do anything about it. But I think that everyone would agree that the increase in tension—due to the proposed peace treaty with D.D.R. and others—did build up over a period of several months and so the Government would have had a fair amount of warning that it might be necessary to use provisions such as are contained in this Clause. It is true that, in the event, the wall was built suddenly.
9.30 p.m.
We are in a position in which the Secretary of State will know in about twelve to fifteen months' time when the possibility of the use of this Clause might come into operation. He will be able to find out the various classes of groups of men of which there is likely to be a shortage in B.A.O.R. or in other units in various parts of the world. I should have thought it possible from the information available to the Secretary of State to be able to be fairly certain, if not of the various classes or trades who need to be recalled, of the trade groups and classes and regiments where it would not be necessary to recall anyone. If it is not possible for the Secretary of State to agree that a longer period of notice can be given, I wonder if he can inform the Committee if it would be possible to put some of the 100,000 men liable for recall under the provisions of this Clause in a position to know that it is extremely unlikely that they will be called upon.
Surely the Secretary of State knows that there are certain classes within the various regiments of which there is a full complement provided for either by Regular soldiers or under Clause 3. Would it not be possible to inform those of the 100,000 concerned that the type of job they did in their National Service is such that it is extremely unlikely that they would be recalled under Clause 2? On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman will know that in certain trades in the Army there is a definite shortage and that he has not in the "Ever-Ready" reserve a sufficient number of those men if there were a building up of tension in Central Europe or anything like the Kuwait affair. Then certain classes would be called back under Clause 2. The computers must be there and he can put the cards through to find what particular types of trade, infantry gunners and so on, are required and what men would be required in certain foreseeable emergencies as worked out by his staff.
If he cannot accept the Amendment, I should have thought some system could be worked out to put as many as possible of the 100,000 out of their misery by giving them some degree of certainty that they will not be needed, for he must know that it would not be necessary to call on their services. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred to the fact that we as a Committee had had very little information about the Reserves and on other aspects affecting the provisions we are discussing. The Secretary of State said that certain information had been sent to C.-in-C.s of overseas bases. I presume that that information gave those officers certain ideas of the type of men who would be retained under Clause 1 and some idea so that they could warn men under their command under the provisions of Clause 2. He should not only assure those of the 100,000 men who may be affected but also find some way of informing the Committee of the various types of men most likely to be involved under the provisions of Clause 2.

Mr. Bellenger: I wonder why my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), in moving this Amendment, referred only to military emergencies. It has been known that the Army can be utilised in strikes and other


national emergencies which have nothing to do with military matters. I remember that when I was Secretary of State soon after the war quite often for various reasons the Army was used on occasions of civil emergency. I can well visualise, especially with the Government we now have, that it might be considered necessary to call up, say, the Royal Engineers to run certain civil services of the country.
I view with grave suspicion not only Clause 1 but the other powers Parliament is being asked to give the Government on assumptions which, to my mind, are not entirely correct. If there were an emergency sufficient to warrant calling out the Reserves without a proclamation, the Opposition would not deny the Government the means of defending this country. We did not deny the Government the means of doing so during the last war.
If the Government were to call up reservists under the Clause for purposes other than a military emergency sufficiently grave to warrant calling out the reserves without a Proclamation, most of my hon. Friends would be very loth to grant the Government the powers they seek under the Clause. These powers are far wider than many of us imagined they would be. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North devoted most of his speech to military emergencies, but I believe these powers are much wider than that.
The whole question of the military reserves ought to be put on a more permanent basis than what is provided for in the Clause. It can last only for about three or three-and-a-half years, during which time the National Service men who are leaving the Army will be liable to be called up. As time goes on the powers we are granting will fade away by effluxion of time, as the lawyers say.
I hope that my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite will urge the Government to take more permanent steps to build up our military reserves to deal with the grave emergencies which they envisage under the Clause. The Government say that they cannot call up more than 60,000 of the reservists. If the emergency were serious enough to call out ex-National Service men, they would probably need more than 60,000.

Indeed, I go so far as to say that it would need a Proclamation. 1 do not believe that we should call out men without a Proclamation. A Proclamation impresses on the country the urgency and gravity of the situation which makes it necessary to call up the men.
The Government have other military reserves. There is no reason why they should not expand them. They can come to Parliament with their Estimates every year and say, "We think that the balance of the Army is such that we ought to have a trained reserve properly paid which can be called out in an emergency", in just the same way as the reserves have been called up before. I remember quite well, as many Members of the House will remember, the occasion when our reserves were called out before the war in connection with Shanghai.

Mr. Wigg: The question of the effectiveness of reserves does not depend on whether they are paid or how much they are paid. It depends upon the last date of registration. Experience has shown that it is difficult to contact reservists. The Secretary of State could tell us about this, because I am sure that exercises have been carried out. The General Reserve is composed of men who have completed their service with the colours and have gone through their three-and-a-half years reserve service. They are liable to recall. The general power runs out in June, 1964. There are about 800,000 of them. I am willing to bet a modest sum that, if an attempt were made to call up those men, it would be found that probably as many as 75 per cent. of them had changed their addresses.
Before the war there was Class A, for which a man received an extra 1s. or 1s, 6d. a day. He registered in order to get the 1s. or 1s. 6d. There was Class B—the one-year men. They would do likewise. They were under a penal requirement to register. If they did not register they could be declared deserters, with all the consequences flowing from that.
My right hon. Friend will realise that one of the consequences of that kind of registration—this is the effective point—was that in the man's pocket he had


a postal order for 5s. to buy a meal, and a railway warrant to take him to a definite point, and at that point there were a rifle and a complete kit with his number on it. The result was that within a few hours of recall those men were an effective fighting force. Under the present arrangement, there will be nothing of the sort.

Mr. Bellenger: My hon. Friend reinforces the point I was trying to make, though I did not go into those details. I can well imagine that what he says is correct. After all, the Regular Army reservists before the war were reliable people. They were volunteers, and they recognised their duty to the country. incidentally, they were paid a very small retainer for observing that duty. In 1914 the reservists were the men who flocked to the Army as soon as the Proclamation was issued and were the backbone of the expeditionary force sent to France.
All I am saying is that I look with a certain amount of suspicion on the haphazard, happy-go-lucky method which the Government are using to enable them, if they wish, to call up 60,000 men far purposes which may not necessarily constitute what my hon. Friends and I or, indeed, many hon. Members opposite would consider to be a grave military emergency.
The Government had far better get down to a long-term policy of providing a well-trained and well-paid reserve upon which they can rely in an emergency. Let us suppose there was a grave emergency, that the country was in grave danger of perhaps not starvation but limitation of food imports. such emergencies occurred just after the war, and time and time again as Secretary of State for War I was asked to produce trained personnel to supplement what civil forces were available.
I must not today give away what were, I suppose, Cabinet secrets in those days. But I and some military advisers viewed with a certain amount of apprehension the use of troops in order to do what really amounted to maintaining the country's supplies but what many of my hon. Friends might call "breaking strikes". However, I hold no particular views about that. If the country is in danger, either internally or externally, we must mobilise all the resources we can to maintain not only law and order

but the vital supplies for the people, who have a very small margin in food reserves.
Consequently, I support any effort to enable the Government to carry on the essential services, which they must do, in defence either against some external enemy or against possible internal disorder. However, the Secretary of State had better get down to considering this problem—he is concerned mainly, of course, with the military problem—of reserves on a far longer-term basis than he suggests in the Bill. My hon. Friend said that the Bill can last only three or four years, but with his long period of military service, he knows how many can dodge the issue if they want to.
We hope that if the Bill is passed the young people will do their duty, as in the main they always have done, but I do not think that we can organise our defence in the haphazard way the Government are proposing in the Bill. All I ask is that the Secretary of State, when he conies to us after the Defence White Paper is issued next month and when he brings his Estimates to the House will come clean with us—as one Patronage Secretary of the Conservative Party was asked to do on one occasion—and simply say, I want this, and "I want that. I ask the House to give me this power and authority for these reasons." All that the right hon. Gentleman is doing in the Bill, and particularly in this Clause, is saying "Give me a blank cheque for up to 60,000 men."

9.45 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: I had no intention of intervening in the debate at this stage, but I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) for his clear appreciation of the rôle of the military in aid of the civil power. It ill lies in the mouth of any hon. Members on the Opposition benches to talk about calling out the Army in aid of the civil power when the record of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a very distinguished member was so very much worse than that of the Government which I support.
I think I am right in saying that, whereas since 1951 the Army has never been called out in aid of the civil power to deal with strikes or to keep merchandise flowing, the record of the


right hon. Gentleman's Government was by no means beyond blemish in this regard. I am not saying that the conditions were not different then, but for him to say that to put this power in the hands of the present Government was a danger, when the record lies in his mouth as to what happened when his party was in power, really is a little too much to take.
I agree that on the question of the reserves we face a Yong-term problem, because the question of calling up and recalling National Service men is something which is bound to run out, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in the next three or four years' time. But the whole purpose of the Bill is to give the Secretary of State, whose record on recruiting has been outstanding, the opportunity of securing—which I believe he will succeed in doing—the number of men he will require in the long term for the Regular Army. Therefore, the problem will solve itself if he is successful. I do not think that we are helping the cause to talk at too great length about calling up all sorts of people who are in very little danger of being called up, thus creating an atmosphere of too much alarm. We are dealing with a very short-term problem, a very tightly-knit problem, which will cause—I will be honest—a good deal of unfairness to small sections of the population, but, if it solves the problem that the nation needs to solve, I believe that in the national interest, we ought to support it. If my right hon. Friend is successful in getting the long-term soldiers, as the right hon. Gentleman said and as the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) knows, this problem will solve itself.

Mr. Loughlin: I want to get it on record that, irrespective of what the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has just said, if the Armed Forces of this country are used for the purpose of strike-breaking, there will be a substantial volume of opinion on this side of the Committee that will oppose it to the fullest extent.
In the circumstances in which we are discussing this Measure, when, as a result of their policies, there has been the precipitation of vast industrial unrest in this country, it ill becomes the right hon. Gentleman to make a speech of

this kind. I reiterate that if this Government, through the various policies which it has pursued, precipitated a head-on clash with the trade unions, and in consequence there was industrial unrest, if this Government then attempts to utilise the Armed Forces for the suppression of the freedom and the rights of the industrial workers who take strike action, there will be substantial opposition from This side of the Committee and more substantial opposition from the trade unions outside.

Mr. Ramsden: It would probably be best, at any rate in the first place, to address myself to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), who asked for two things. He asked us, if we were to accept the Amendment, to make it a statutory obligation to give as much notice as possible to men subject to this Clause and to allow the possibility of appeal against recall on the grounds of serious hardship.
My right hon. Friend has considerable sympathy with the objects of this Amendment, and, in fact, as I think he has already made clear, he does regard it as incumbent on him to carry out a great deal of it, but there is difficulty about doing so by statutory means. My right hon. Friend always would give as much notice as possible, but, as the Committee will appreciate, my right hon. Friend cannot command the circumstances in which a recall might be forced on us. In fact, it would probably not be my right hon. Friend who would determine the period of notice so much as the circumstances attending some build-up of tension, which might put him under notice to do what would have become a necessity.
My right hon. Friend has already described the arrangements we shall be making for cases of hardship and the general basis on which we shall attempt to deal witch these, subject to the time factor, and he has already described how we should seek to inform those men who might be recalled of the facilities which would be available to them for representing their circumstances. I am afraid, however, that I cannot accept that we should be obliged to transform these undertakings into statutory form. There would be some real difficulties about so doing.
I think the Committee will appreciate that a statutory provision providing for the giving of as much notice as possible would inevitably leave the door wide oven to men sent notices of recall to say why we ought to have given them more notice. This would be argued and inevitably there would be litigation, and in the result it might nullify the powers of recall in Clause 2, because by the time such oases had been tested in the courts the emergency leading to recall and starting the whole process off might well be over. Again—and I think that the hon. Member for Islington, North was conscious of this difficulty and referred to it—how is one to prove in a court of law that as much notice as possible has been given to a man? I think these are real difficulties, and there is the further point that a statutory provision making it necessary to inform a man of a right of appeal is something which, although there are plenty of opportunities under Army law for appeals to be made, seems unprecedented.
I hope I have said enough to convince the Committee that, while we are in sympathy with the objects of this Amendment, statutory provision on these lines is undesirable as it would certainly be prolific of litigation and consequent delay and would, in fact, defeat the purpose of the Clause. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
He asked me a specific question, namely, would my right hon. Friend be able to say that he could at some time put out of suspense people, or at any rate some of the people, who might be subject to the possibility of recall under Clause 2? I am not in a position to give any such undertaking at the present time. We cannot say what form an emergency might take, and it would be unwise, having sought these powers, to limit the possibilities open to the Government under this Clause.
The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) rather misunderstood our specific reason for seeking these powers from the House when he referred to the possibility of a call up for civil emergency. The specific reason is that there may be an occasion when men are needed but when, owing to the circum

stances of the time, it would be inappropriate to issue a proclamation. My right hon. Friend has already enlarged on that on Second Reading. There might be times when it would be better, without the increase in international tension and anxiety attendant upon all the business of a proclamation in this House, to have more men, and the Bill provides the methods to meet that kind of situation.
The right hon. Gentleman advised me right hon. Friend to consider the build up of what he called a better reserve—a long-term reserve. As he will know from his experience in office, we have such a reserve, but it is limited in its application. There are some circumstances in which it cannot be used without proclamation, and without embodiment. The Territorial Army is an example. It is to meet circumstances in which those limitations apply but where there is still the need for men that these provisions have been introduced. I hope that what I have said will go some way towards reassuring the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Bellenger: But does the hon. Gentleman admit that if there were a double emergency—a civil emergency concurrently with a military one—the Government could use those powers in order to call up the reserve for civil purposes?

Mr. Ramsden: I am reluctant to go further than I already have done. We have explained the purpose of this power and there have been other precedents. I think that the right hon. Gentleman understands the situation, and I hope that he will not press me further on it now.

Mr. Ede: The Under-Secretary of State talks about an emergency, but the Clause contains no reference to emergency. If we pass the Clause, the Minister estimates that he could call up 100,000 men. That means that his military advisers would know that he could get that number of men. I am not prepared to leave the right hon. Gentleman's military advisers in a position in which, without any reason being given to the House, they can get 100,000 men into the Army, even if only for six months.
That is the position the House faces on this Clause. The Secretary of State


does not have to make an Order that has to be confirmed by either an affirmative or negative Resolution. He merely says, "The Adjutant-General says he must have 100,000 men, and I have sent out notices to 100,000 men"—or fewer—"to tell them to come up". That is a power quite unprecedented in our history, and it really cuts away all the safeguards that have protected the civilian population from the ambitions of the military advisers of the War Office.

Mr. Paget: First, we have been told that this power could be used in a civil emergency in order to get additional strike—breakers—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course the right hon. Gentleman could call up people under this Clause as strike breakers, if he dared, but, frankly, I do not take this very seriously because it is something that I am certain that a Conservative Government would never dare to do. So do not let us be too anxious about it.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is that so?

Mr. Paget: Times have changed—so has the Army.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: The Tories have not.

Mr. Paget: Yes, but I must come to the Amendment. I am told by the Financial Secretary that the Amendment could cause legal delays which would stop this provision becoming operative. The Amendment states that
…the Secretary of State … shall … give … as much notice as possible having regard to the nature of the emergency necessitating the recall and where time allows any person so recalled shall be informed that he may appeal … 
I can assure the Financial Secretary that terms of that sort occurred in dozens of Acts during the war. There are many still on the Statute Book. Such terms would cause the courts no difficulty or delays. At any rate, are those delays conceivably comparable with the delays which have been offered by the Secretary of State When he says that anyone who thinks that he has grounds for appeal can have his recall postponed for 56 days, even if that involves calling up someone else?

Mr. Profumo: I did not say that if anyone thinks he has a case for appeal he can have 56 days' postponement. I did not say that at all. I would not say that sort of thing. I referred to any case that could be substantiated. I was referring to a case where it was agreed—or where the officer in charge of records agreed—that there could be a postponement if one was warranted.

Mr. Paget: Then just what is the position? Who judges the case? If the case is a good one we have an undertaking that the man will not be called up. The position is an interim one. If, in other words, there is a case which a man believes in, then until it is judged it has to be assumed in his favour. Therefore, if this undertaking means anything at all, it means that people who do not like it have the option to hold it up for 56 days. After saying that, to proceed to say that it will not cause delays is almost farcical.
I am not going to ask the Committee to divide on the Amendment partly because of the question of time but really more because I no longer regard it as adequate. What we were led to understand—what was explained to us—was that this provision was something which probably would never have to be used and which existed for emergency purposes. But there was this liability; that it could not be brought into operation without there being a declaration of emergency—and a declaration of emergency amounted to mobilisation. We have Napoleon's word for it that mobilisation means war and that, of course, is something which is extremely dangerous.
Clause 2 was explained on Second Reading as being something required in an emergency. Therefore, with the utmost care, I drafted the Amendment to prevent there being any immediate delay so that the Government could have its people without having to give more notice than necessary. But I no longer believe this, for what has emerged today is that at present we have between 205,000 and 210,000 men in the Army. By April what will the number be? My hon. Friend can probably give a precise answer, but I venture to think that it will be over 190,000. At that point we are asked to operate Clause 1 in order to retain more men. That is not to keep


to the 165,000; it is to keep it way above 165,000 because the Government know that under present commitments it has got to be above 165,000. Without this Bill the Army would never drop below 165,000. By January, 1963, that will be the figure without this Bill at all. The purpose of this Bill is to keep the number above 165,000.
It seems that when we have not got anybody to keep for another six months, this Clause comes into operation. If that be so, this Amendment is nothing like good enough. Far more notice should be given. The men concerned should have a far clearer right to notice than we contemplate here. If people are to be recalled, not for an emergency, but in order to keep the numbers up, they should have much wider rights. But that is not what we have been led to expect until today.

Mr. Wigg: I would not have intervened in this debate but for the way that it has developed. I must say that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) amazed me a little. He clearly believed what he said, which makes all the more incredible the suggestion that anybody should seek to use the Armed Forces of the Crown for strike breaking.
Consider what is involved. The Secretary of State has at his disposal Sections A, B. D, F, G and Categories I, IIA, JIB and III. He has about 200,000 part-time National Service men, and we know from the statement of the Secretary of State that this category will go down to 100,000 in 1963. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to turn to page 31 of the Army Estimates for 1961–62. Ail the details are there.
Why does the Secretary of State for War want to use this class which he is organising so that he can call them out without proclamation? He does not want an enemy power at a moment of great tension to know what he is doing. Why should 'he surreptitiously want to use this group far strike breaking when he has all these and other categories which are organised and much more highly trained? I should have thought it was absolutely unmitigated nonsense to make any such suggestion, if the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw will forgive me—and I am being polite when I say that.
When we come to the right hon. Gentleman's reply it seems to me that he made his point about the organisation of men under Clause 2 on Second Reading. He there told us:
The authorities concerned would have power to grant immediate postponement in exceptional circumstances … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 51.]
He was kind enough, in answer to me today, to say that this would be done by the Officer-in-Charge, Records. This is what I understand, although he may, as it were, delegate the power, perhaps, to brigade commanders or district commanders. He will have to work it out.
It is clear that this particular category is not really to deal with an emergency at all. Let us look at the timetable. The group covered by Clause I will, as it were, move beyond the scope of the Clause by May, 1963, will it not? The last man to complete his two years will go out in November next. So that, if the last man out has to serve an extra six months, he will have gone out by May, 1963. It is goodbye to Clause 1 then. But the last man out, if he is not called up under Clause 1, has a liability up to May, 1966.
What the Bill is doing, therefore, is to put the future organisation and strengthening of the army, as it were, on to Clause 2. At any time during the next 3½ years after November, 1962, these chaps can be called back. The figure in 1963, so the Secretary of State tells us, will have sunk from 200,000 down to 100,000, and each month that goes by the number gets smaller and smaller. That is another reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw was wrong. It is a dwindling number.
What the Committee will have no time to discuss, owing to the timetable, is, given this policy, what happens when we come to May, 1966? This, of course, is the major crime of the Bill. It is to get the Government out of a very difficult situation, but it switches us over on to a reserve policy which in essence is very short-term. It cannot go beyond 3½ years. I can only assume that this is the work of the Prime Minister, the most brilliant this country has ever produced. He has said to himself, "Whoever is Prime Minister on that date, it


will not be me". This is what he is leaving behind. Someone else will have to tackle this. By that time, there will be very few fish swimming in the pool.
This is one of the reasons why on Clause 1 I moved to introduce a bounty for the chaps retained. I think it essential, in order to keep the Army at its best, to ensure that people leaving the Army go out in the best possible frame of mind. Otherwise, if they go out with a strong grievance, they will for the rest of their lives do their best to see that the Army is painted in a bad way. I hoped that I should be able to move another Amendment on this Clause to do exactly the same. The arguments are different, and I can do it in another way now.
There is a difference here. The Secretary of State recognises this. I must make the point at this stage, if my hon. Friends wish to divide.

Mr. Reynolds: On the next one.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Let us have a Division.

Mr. Wigg: The Secretary of State himself recognises the difference between a man caught by Clause 2 and a man caught by Clause 1. On Second Reading, he told us that he proposes to give a chap caught by Clause 2 at any time in the next 3½ years a bounty of £20. I beg his pardon. He calls it a gratuity. It will add up to £20, and the chap who gets it will not mind whether it is called a gratuity or a bounty. I should have been out of order if I had tried to do it previously, but I will put it now. This is what disposes of nine-tenths of the right hon. Gentleman's argument about his scepticism in, as it were, handing out money to those required to do something for which they have not volunteered. They will get £20.
My answer to him on that point is that this is not enough. It is a completely different situation, not that of an emergency but a matter of foundation. I support the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton because it is the foundation of what is to be the permanent reserve policy of the Government and their successors.
10.15 p.m.
It is for that fundamental reason that before we leave this matter the Secretary of State should tell us, or give us the date by which we shall be told, who are to be the authorities to whom these chaps will be able to appeal when they get their call-up notices. Because it is a dwindling number, until the number becomes very small indeed, it is vital that these men should know what the machinery is and the permanent form which it will take. We were not told on Second Reading and we have not been told tonight. I am wilting to forgo any rights I may have about moving the next Amendment if, by answering that question, the right hon. Gentleman will indicate that he is thinking beyond the expenditure of the difficult situation created by his own policies.

Mr. Profumo: I do not want to prevent the hon. Member from talking out his own Amendment. The machinery is as I outlined to the Committee when we discussed Clause 1.

Mr. Wigg: That means that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean what he said earlier when he said that the authorities concerned would be the officers in charge of records. Is that correct or not?

Mr. Profumo: The authorities who immediately authorise that a man need not report for duty while his case is being considered will, I hope, be the officers in charge of records—I do not want to tie myself—but it will still go through the machinery of quickly going straight to the War Office under the procedure which I have outlined in connection with Clause 1.

Mr. Reynolds: We have not had satisfactory replies on this Amendment, but several of my hon. Friends and I wish to get on to an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), which we are to discuss next, and which we consider of great importance. That being the case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Chairman: Is it the Committee's pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Mr. Ellis Smith: No.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: I call the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) to move the Amendment in page 2, line 36, at end add:
(4) Any person recalled under this section shall receive, as a member of the Territorial Army or of the reserve forces, a bounty of a sum equivalent to one hundred days' pay at the rate at which he was paid on the last day of his full-time service, authorised by an order made under section eleven of the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953, or of section eleven of the Army Reserve Act, 1950, as the case may be.
I think that it would be convenient to discuss also the Amendment in Clause 3, page 3, line 34, at end add:
(7) On the making of an agreement under this section the Secretary of State shall pay a bounty of one hundred and fify pounds to the volunteer, and a further bounty of fifty pounds on his recall; such bounties to be authorised by an order made under section eleven of the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Sir William, as the hour is late and the case for the Amendment to Clause 2 is somewhat different from the case for the Amendment to Clause 3, would I be abusing your kindness if I ask leave to move only the first Amendment? I would be able to move it formally and then move the second Amendment tomorrow under the timetable of the Guillotine which deals with Clause 3.

The Chairman: No. I am afraid that that would not be possible, because the second Amendment has not been selected. It would have been possible to discuss it with the first Amendment which has been selected, and which I have called.

Mr. Wigg: I cannot be press-ganged into moving an Amendment that I do not want to move.

The Chairman: There is no question of that. The Amendment which has been selected, and which I have called, is the first Amendment. I merely said, as was stated on the provisional list of the selection of Amendments, that it would be possible to discuss the two Amendments together. There will not, however, be a Division on the second Amendment.

Mr. Wigg: I do not want a Division on the second Amendment. I want to move the first Amendment now and leave the second one until tomorrow, and then discuss it on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: I am sorry that I am not making myself clear. The second Amendment, which is on tomorrow's business, has not been selected and will not be called. Had he or any other Member of the Committee wished to discuss the second Amendment now with the Amendment that I have called, he would have been able to do so, but no Division will take place on the second Amendment. I now return to the first Amendment and call the hon. Member to move it.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Sir William, I should not be honest if I did not say that what you said originally was crystal clear. I invite the attention of the Chair to the fact that since a previous occupant of the Chair ruled that the two Amendments had to be moved together, the Government in an arbitrary way have fixed a Guillotine. I suggest that the Guillotine operates in such a way that the first Amendment can be moved tonight, and the second one tomorrow. It is the only fair and beneficent part of the guillotine Motion. I want to move the first Amendment now and discuss the second Amendment tomorrow. I trust that you will accept that the Guillotine has made a substantial difference.

The Chairman: The hon. Member will find himself in some difficulty, because the discussion and Division on the first Amendment will take place tonight, and tomorrow the second Amendment will not be selected to be moved. There may be an opportunity tomorrow, on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, for the hon. Member to make his speech relating to the second Amendment.
To avoid any misunderstanding, may I now make it clear to the Committee that if a Division is required on the first Amendment I must have an opportunity of putting the Question before half-past Ten.

Mr. Profumo: if the hon. Gentleman does decide to move the Amendment, may I, in the interests of time, say that I shall not accept it.

Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end to add:
(4) Any person recalled under this section shall receive, as a member of the Territorial Army or of the reserve forces, a bounty of


a sum equivalent to one hundred days' pay at the rate at which he was paid on the last day of his full-time service, authorised by an order made under section eleven of the Auxiliary Forces Act, 1953, or of section eleven of the Army Reserve Act, 1950, as the case may be.
I was optimistic so far as the Chair was concerned, but my optimism did not go so far as to expect that the present Administration would accept anything quite as intelligent as the words on the Order Paper. I am sure that in the course of four minutes and 50 seconds I would not be expected to give all the reasons for the Amendment. They have, in part, been made out on Clause 1. As I have already said, however, there is a major difference between Clauses 1 and 2, inasmuch as, during the Second Reading debate, the Secretary of State accepted the principle upon which the Amendment is based, namely, that a gratuity—I use the word that the right hon. Gentleman so obviously prefers—should be given to those men who are recalled to the Colours under the Clause.
The Secretary of State has named a figure of £20, tax-free. I take the view that the figure should be flexible, and should amount to 100 days' pay at the rate ruling at the time the man leaves the Colours. In view of the fact that the numbers would be tending to fall off, I thought that this would make no

great charge upon the Exchequer, but if the Secretary of State quarrels about my 100 days since he accepted the principle of the Amendment during the Second Reading debate, I am quite willing for him to try to fix a figure somewhere between his £20 and my 100 days' pay. I regard the offer of £20 as mean. It is in accordance with the tradition of the Government to give only to those who have. The poor soldier who has completed his two years' service and has narrowly escaped being recalled receives £20, while the Surtax payers receive their £84 million. That is on the principle that we have never had it so good.

When the soldiers are being called back I hope that they will sometimes reflect upon the way in which that principle works out in practice. If the Secretary of State is satisfied with the position, and the serried ranks behind him—who have appeared for the first time just before we go home, having hitherto shown their interest in this Bill, which is of such vital importance for the nation, by their almost complete absence from the House—are also satisfied, I have no more to say, except to press the Amendment to a Division.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 153, Noes 224.

Division No. 57.]
AYES
[10.28 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Finch, Harold
Jeger, George


Albu, Austen
Fitch, Alan
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fletcher, Eric
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Allen, Scholcfield (Crewe)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Awbery, Stan
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kelley, Richard


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Forman, J. C.
Kenyon, Clifford


Beaney, Alan
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
King, Dr. Horace


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Lawson, George


Bence, Cyril
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Benson, Sir George
Gourlay, Harry
Loughlin, Charles


Blackburn, F.
Greenwood, Anthony
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Blyton, William
Grey, Charles
McCann, John


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacColl, James


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McInnes, James


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
McLeavy, Frank


Bowles, Frank
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hannan, William
Manuel, A, C,


Cliffe, Michael
Hayman, F. H.
Mapp, Charles


Collick, Percy
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mason, Roy


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mellish, R. J.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hilton, A. V.
Mendelson, J. J.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Holman, Percy
Millan, Bruce


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Holt, Arthur
Milne, Edward


Deer, George
Hoy, James H.
Mitchison, G. R.


Delargy, Hugh
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moody, A. S.


Dempsey, James
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, John


Diamond, John
Hunter, A. E.
Mulley, Frederick


Donnelly, Desmond
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oram, A. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas




Owen, Will
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Padley, W. E.
Skeffington, Arthur
Wade, Donald


Paget, R. T.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Parker, John
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Warbey, William


Pavitt, Laurence
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Watkins, Tudor


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Snow, Julian
Whitlock, William


Pentland, Norman
Sorensen, R. W.
Wigg, George


Prentice, R. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wilkins, W. A.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Frederick


Probert, Arthur
Steele, Thomas
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Randall, Harry
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Redhead, E. C.
Stonehouse, John
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Reynolds, G. W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Rhodes, H.
Swingler, Stephen
Winterbottom, R. E.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Symonds, J. B.
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thornton, Ernest



Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Thorpe, Jeremy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ross, William
Timmons, John
Mr, Short and Mr. Irving.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gibson-Watt, David
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Allason, James
Gilmour, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley R.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maddan, Martin


Arbuthnot, John
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Maginnis, John E.


Barlow, Sir John
Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Sir John


Barter, John
Goodhart, Philip
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Batsford, Brian
Gower, Raymond
Marshall, Douglas


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Berkeley, Humphry
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Mawby, Ray


Biffen, John
Green, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Biggs-Davison, John
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bingham, R. M.
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Stratton


Bishop, F. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Frederick (Croydon, N.W.)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morrison, John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Braine, Bernard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Neave, Airey


Brewis, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hastings, Stephen
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Brooman-White, R.
Hay, John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Buck, Antony
Hendry, Forbes
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hicks Beach, Ma). W.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Burden, F. A.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Partridge, E.


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hobson, John
Percival, Ian


Channon, H. P. G.
Hocking, Philip N.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Chataway, Christopher
Holland, Philip
Pitman, Sir James


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hollingworth, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hornby, R. P.
Pott, Percivall


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Collard, Richard
Hughes-Young, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Cooper, A. E.
Iremonger, T. L.
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Corfield, F. V.
Jackson, John
Pym, Francis


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Ramsden, James


Coulson, Michael
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rawlinson, Peter


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Jennings, J. C.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rees, Hugh


Curran, Charles
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Renton, David


Dance, James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ridsdale, Julian


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rippon, Geoffrey


de Ferranti, Basil
Kershaw, Anthony
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kirk, Peter
Roots, William


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kitson, Timothy
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Drayson, G. B.
Leavey, J. A.
Russell, Ronald


du Cann, Edward
Leburn, Gilmour
Scott-Hopkins, James


Duncan, Sir James
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, M.


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-uponTyne, N.)
Lilley, F. J. P.
Shepherd, William


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Farr, John
Litchfield, Capt. John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fell, Anthony
Loveys, Walter H.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Smithers, Peter


Fisher, Nigel
MacArthur, Ian
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McLaren, Martin
Speir, Rupert


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Stanley, Hon. Richard







Stevens, Geoffrey
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wall, Patrick


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir Malcolm
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Webster, David


Storey, Sir Samuel
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Whitelaw, William


Studholme, Sir Henry
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Turner, Colin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Talbot, John E.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Woollam, John


Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Worsley, Marcus


Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Vane, W. M. F.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John



Temple, John M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Mr. Peel and


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Walker, Peter
Mr. Michael Hamilton.

It being after half-past Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question necessary to complete the Proceedings on Clause 2.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 151.

Division No. 58.]
AYES
[10.38 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Allason, James
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
MacArthur, Ian


Amery, Rt- Hon. Julian
Gibson-Wart, David
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Arbuthnot, John
Gilmour, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs.)


Barlow, Sir John
Glover, Sir Douglas
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Barter, John
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Batsford, Brian
Godber, J. B.
Maddan, Martin


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Maginnis, John E.


Berkeley, Humphry
Gower, Raymond
Maitland, Sir John


Biffen, John
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.
Marshall, Douglas


Bingham, R. M.
Green, Alan
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Bishop, F. P.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mawby, Ray


Black, Sir Cyril
Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mills, Stratton


Braine, Bernard
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brewis, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.- Col. Sir Walter
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, John


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Brooman-White, R.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Neave, Airey


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hastings, Stephen
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard


Buck, Antony
Hay, John
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Burden, F. A.
Hendry, Forbes
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chataway, Christopher
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hobson, John
Partridge, E.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hocking, Philip N.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Holland, Philip
Peel, John


Collard, Richard
Holllingworth, John
Percival, Ian


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, R. P.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Cooper, A. E.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Pitman, Sir James


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pitt, Miss Edith


Corfield, F. V.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pott, Percivall


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Coulson, Michael
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Jackson, John
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Curran, Charles
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pym, Francis


Currie, G. B. H.
Jennings, J. C.
Ramsden, James


Dance, James
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Rawlinson, Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rees, Hugh


de Ferranti, Basil
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Renton, David


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


du Cann, Edward
Kirk, Peter
Rippon, Geoffrey


Duncan, Sir James
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Leavey, J. A.
Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Leburn, Gilmour
Roots, William


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Fair, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Russell, Ronald


Fell, Anthony
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Scott-Hopkins, James


Finlay, Graeme
Litchfield, Capt. John
Sharples, Richard


Fisher, Nigel
Loveys, Walter H.
Shaw, M.




Shepherd, William
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Temple, John M.
Walker, Peter


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wall, Patrick


Smithers, Peter
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Ward, Dame Irene


Speir, Rupert
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Webster, David


Stanley, Hon. Richard
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Whitelaw, William


Stevens, Geoffrey
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Cordon
woodhouse, C. M.


Storey, Sir Samuel
Turner, Colin
Woollam, John


Studholme, Sir Henry
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Talbot, John E.
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vane, W. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mr. Gordon Campbell and




Mr. McLaren.




NOES


Ainsley, William
Hayman, F. H.
Pentland, Norman


Albu, Austen
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Prentice, R. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hilton, A. V.
Probert, Arthur


Awbery, Stan
Holman, Percy
Randall, Harry


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Holt, Arthur
Readhead, E. C.


Beaney, Alan
Hoy, James H.
Reynolds, G. W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rhodes, H.


Bence, Cyril
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hunter, A. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Benson, Sir George
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Blyton, William
Janner, Sir Barnett
Ross, William


Boardman, H.
Jeger, George
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skeffington, Arthur


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Bowles, Frank
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Braddook, Mrs. E. M.
Kelley, Richard
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Kenyon, Clifford
Snow, Julian


Cliffe, Michael
King, Dr. Horace
Sorensen, R. W.


Collick, Percy
Lawson, George
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Steele, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Loughlin, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stonehouse, John


Deer, George
McCann, John
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Delargy, Hugh
MacColl, James
Swingler, Stephen


Dempsey, James
McInnes, James
Symonds, J. B.


Diamond, John
McLeavey, Frank
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Donnelly, Desmond
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thornton, Ernest


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, A. C.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Finch, Harold
Mapp, Charles
Timmons, John


Fitch, Alan
Mason, Roy
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Fletcher, Eric
Mellish, R. J.
Wade, Donald


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mendelson, J. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Millan, Bruce
Warbey, William


Forman, J. C.
Milne, Edward
Watkins, Tudor


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Whitlock, William


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, John
Willey, Frederick


Ginsburg, David
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Gourlay, Harry
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Greenwood, Anthony
Oram, A. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Grey, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hon, Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Owen, Will
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Padley, W. E.
Woof, Robert


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Paget, R. T.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Parker, John
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pavitt, Laurence



Hannan, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Short and Mr. Irving.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING, BLYTH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: Blyth is a town of shipyard workers, railwaymen, miners, dock workers, shop and office workers, and others which follow similar callings. It is a typical working-class community which makes a major contribution to the economic well-being of the nation. And it has a housing problem. Had it been peopled by financiers and speculators, had it numbered take-over bid merchants among its inhabitants, this housing problem would not have existed.
But for Blyth, as for other parts of industrial Britain, the housing problem is an industrial one, and the reason for this intervention on the Adjournment tonight arises from Questions tabled to the Minister of Housing and Local Government on this subject.
Last November the Blyth Council expressed concern to the Ministry about the effect of the prevailing interest rates on its housing programme. The Minister in his reply to the Council made the following statement:
The Minister notes the council's concern about the effect of present interest rates on housing programmes. The Government take the view, however, that it is reasonable for the rates payable by local authorities, like those payable by the Government and all other borrowers, to vary according to the general economic position of the country. The present rates are a reflection on the general pressure of demand for capital and the Government do not consider that local authorities should be insulated against a trend of this kind. As you will know, there have been two reductions in the interest rates charged by the Public Works Loan Board during the past six weeks.
Replying to Questions, the Minister claimed that there were only two problems affecting Blyth; shortage of land, due to mining subsidence, and the need for a new sewage disposal scheme. He also talked about pooling rents and subsidies, and applying a differential rent scheme so that additional resources could be found. As I said at the outset, Blyth's housing problem is a financial one, visited upon it by the Government's policy which they have pursued during the last ten years.
If we look at the position in comparison with 1955, what kind of problem do we find that the Government have created for the Blyth Council, and for the people whom it seeks to assist in their housing needs? In 1955, the Public Works Loan Board was charging interest at 3¾ per cent. over a period of 60 years. If we take the average cost of a dwelling in the borough at £2,000, we find that in 1955 the annual loan charges amounted to £84 per annum, or £1 12s. 4d. a week, with a total, over the 60 years, of £5,040. When the council wrote to the Ministry, the interest rates had risen to 7 per cent. and the annual loan charges had risen to £142, or £2 14s. 7d. a week, with an overall total over 60 years of £8,520—an increase of £3,480 since 1955.
What does that increase mean to the council making the protest? It means that each new house completed imposes on the housing revenue account a charge of £70 or £80 a year and, on the present building programme, the account's present surplus would be whittled down in 2½ or 3 years. That is the measure of the Government's financial policy, and its anti-social effect on the people of Blyth. The town has a waiting list of about 1,300 people. In the year under review, the council was able to rehouse about forty applicants, but the new applicants on the waiting list greatly exceeded the number rehoused in new houses completed during the year.
Some of those in overcrowded conditions have been living in these conditions for six years, and the occupiers of condemned property have to wait for 15 or 18 months from the operative date of the order before they are rehoused by the council—very often leaving behind them properties that are in a dangerous state. That, again, is the result of ten years' of housing policy pursued by a Government which have repeatedly and increasingly impeded the efforts, even the best efforts, of councils to tackle this very great problem.
I do not want to deal with Blyth's problem only on the basis of figures, although those figures are alarming in themselves. What we have to consider, and what we are considering—but what


the Government do not appear to be considering—is the tremendous social and human problem that follows in the wake of policies of this description.
I have received numerous letters from constituents who realise that this is a local problem, but who, nevertheless, want to let their Member of Parliament know the circumstances and their feelings about being in a position of this description. I want to quote from one of these letters. It is from a constituent who has since been rehoused but who, I believe, voices the hopes and aspirations of all parents faced with a problem of this sort. In his letter to me he said:
I feel I cannot tolerate this appalling existence for my family any longer, eight of us cooped up in one bedroom and by day eating, washing clothes and cooking our food in the one scullery in somebody else's house where there are three families comprising thirteen persons.
We are told about juvenile delinquency and about extending the educational facilities for children, but this is what the letter goes on to say:
My children are being brought up far too harshly in order to keep them quiet for our ageing parents and more recently for our own fraying nerves. This unnatural upbringing we are sure has caused lasting if not permanent damage to at least three of our more impressionable children
That is the stark human tragedy behind the figures and behind the speeches made by successive Ministers of Housing. It is the stark reality of the human problem that lies behind statements made by Ministers in which they say that outside the large cities in Britain the housing problem has been virtually solved.
As I have said, we are an industrial community with an unemployment problem sufficient to place us within the scope of being an area scheduled for industrial development. So some of the strictures of the Government on the council for the financial assistance that is required fall, to a large extent, on deaf ears. We are told in speeches about a property-owning democracy, but, of course, the affluent society stopped short of the borders of Northumberland.
If at this stage we go outside the realms of council house building we find that the building societies are telling people who want to buy their own houses that they must be earning at least £1,000

a year. I have already explained to the House the type of community that we are. When we talk about the drop in council house figures in Blyth and elsewhere we are told about the increases in private building figures. But this, again, does not solve the problem of an industrial community of this description, and it is to deal with this problem in the borough that I have raised this matter tonight.
It may be that the question of private building will be referred to by the Minister when he replies to what I have to say. We have had that type of statement before. I think that, in the main, with a few honourable exceptions, private builders have failed the people of Britain, and that the opportunity given to them by this Government has been used merely as a means of adding to their own profits and not of detracting from the problem of the people. There has been no real protection from the Minister behind the slogan of "Let the builders build."
The rates payable by local authorities vary according to the general economic position of the country, said the Minister in his letter to the council. But we cannot put the borough of an area which is scheduled for industrial redevelopment on the same economic basis as boroughs in the Midlands and in the Metropolitan area. One must look at this question in some respects bearing in mind the economic situation of the area, rather than the supposed economic situation of the country as a whole. I have tried to keep this within the scope of the appeal both by the council in its letters to the Ministry and in my Questions to the Minister.
Three factors must be closely watched. Firstly, we have a housing problem; secondly, that problem has been increased and aggravated by the financial policy of the Ministry concerned; and—thirdly—by the financial policy of the Government.
A £2,000 house cost in 1955, on the rates of interest then prevailing, just over £5,000 on a 60-year loan. The rates of interest at the time of the exchange of letters between the Ministry and the council made that figure reach well in excess of £8,000. That means that if one adds the interest charges to the price of the dwelling, one has


three dwellings covered by the interest charges, but only one house. It represents one house in place of the price of three—the money going in interest charges and to the interests behind the financial speculation that has been unleashed on Blyth and the nation. I urge the Ministry to give careful and very special consideration to this plea I have made tonight.

11.2 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I can well understand the interest which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) has shown in housing, particularly in his constituency. Some of the matters which he raised come primarily within the jurisdiction and competence of the Blyth Borough Council. Some of the other issues are of a wider interest, and perhaps I might begin by dealing with the points the hon. Gentleman made about interest rates.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Blyth Borough Council wrote to the Ministry on 10th November about this matter and the hon. Gentleman received a copy of our reply. That reply made the Government's position perfectly clear and I am happy to stand here tonight to repeat it. We take the view that the local authorities, like the Government and other borrowers, should pay the market rate which varies inevitably according to the general economic position of the country. Local authorities really cannot expect to be insulated as a special section of the community from these general trends.
In fact, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, since that letter was written by Blyth Borough Council interest rates have been reduced slightly. On the day after the letter was written—and not because of it—the Public Works Loan Board's interest rate on loans for 60 years, the traditional period for loans for house-building, was reduced to 6¾ per cent. If we succeed in strengthening the economy, we can hope that that downward trend will continue.
What I am sure would be wrong would be to allow local authorities to borrow, presumably from the Public Works Loan Board, at less than the current rate of

interest. We do not want to add differential rates of interest to differential subsidies and differential rents. Such a policy would be highly inflationary unless the difference between the market rate and the special low rate was covered by taxation. It would be nothing more than a concealed subsidy.
The Housing Act, 1961, to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer, has improved subsidies for those local authorities in the greatest need. I am sure that that is the right way of tackling the problem. If there is to be a subsidy, it should be direct and, as far as possible, distributed according to need. The two basic rates of subsidy payable under the Act are £24 and £8 a dwelling for 60 years. Which of those two rates a local authority shall receive will be determined on a financial calculation—partly a notional one. In fact, each authority's actual expenditure will be compared with an assumed income made up of the actual subsidies and miscellaneous income received, together with twice the gross value of its house property. That will encourage some of them to have a sensible rent policy.
If on this basis the income is less than the expenditure, the basic subsidy of £24 per dwelling is payable. Otherwise, the basic subsidy will normally be £8. Furthermore, supplemental subsidies may be given to authorities with special financial difficulties whose housing expenditure greatly exceeds their income when measured by the local yield of a penny rate. In such cases the £24 may become £29, or £34 or £40. That is quite apart from the special subsidy provisions for high building, town development, and so on.
On this basis it looks as if the Blyth Council will qualify for the £24 subsidy, although that is not quite certain. What I would say is that it is wrong to take a figure for one particular house and then apply the mathematical calculation that the hon. Gentleman did to that particular house. The housing revenue account should be looked at as a whole. If the Exchequer subsidies are pooled—and they should be—and if all council tenants pay a reasonable rent, as they should do, it should be perfectly possible for an authority with an urgent need to continue to build and let its houses at a reasonable rent which


tenants can afford. It is not right to make these calculations in respect of one particular house. One must take a broad view of the whole picture.
There seems to be no evidence that local authorities are stopping essential house building merely because of financial difficulties. Apart from the help they receive from these new subsidies, it may be that the Blyth Council can improve its financial position and that of its poorer tenants by reviewing its rent policy. That is a matter for the council. But there is no rent rebate scheme in Blyth, and I am told that the question has not even been considered in the last four or five years. So much for the general background.
I should like to say a word about Blyth's building problems, building programme and building record—not quite the same things. There is a problem. In 1955 the council put forward a slum clearance programme for 535 houses to be dealt with in five years. At the end of 1961 it had dealt with 391 houses, nearly half of them by way of individual demolition and closing orders. This made redevelopment rather more difficult than might otherwise have been the case. The council has had to buy land piecemeal under Part V of the 1957 Act. Apart from slum clearance, the council has a waiting list of 1,300 including 136 old people. In addition, it will eventually have to rehouse the families from 106 temporary bungalows and 59 type B.2 aluminium bungalows which are liable to erosion.
The council owns land for about a hundred dwellings on which site works have not yet begun. I appreciate that although there is sufficient land allocated in the town map for ultimate use, much of it cannot be used until 1963–68 because of instability caused by mining subsidence and the need for new sewage disposal schemes.
If one looks at the building programme and the building record of the borough council one gets the picture more in perspective. The council in its letter assessed its need at about 250 houses a year. But there is a distinction between the programme and the record, the target and the performance. In 1958 the council asked for a programme of

140, was given one of 80 and submitted tenders for 44. In 1959 it was given a programme of 30. This was increased to 97 after it made representations. In the event, it submitted tenders for 24 houses. In 1960 and 1961 there were no formal allocations. The council submitted tenders for 18 in 1960 and 52 in 1961. These proposals were approved.
I notice that in a supplementary question which he put to my right hon. Friend on 12th December, the hon. Gentleman said that
Last year, in the Borough of Blyth … no new houses were built".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1961; Vol. 651, c. 204.]
I am sure that he will agree that that is not accurate. Forty-one were completed in 1960 and six were completed in 1961. At the end of the year, there were 56 under construction.
The hon. Gentleman referred to private enterprise. It may be of interest to him to know that private enterprise completed 603 houses between 1958 and 1961 and had 73 under construction at the beginning of this year.
In its letter to the Ministry of 10th November, 1961, the council said that 70 houses would need to be put to tender in 1962. We asked the council the number likely to be allocated for priority purposes, and we were informed that 26 in the proposed programme would be for old people and the remainder for rehousing people from slums or badly overcrowded conditions. Accordingly, we informed the council on 22nd of this month that the 70 houses for which it asked could be put into contract in 1962. I only hope that this year it will be luckier than in past years in actually completing the programme for which it has asked and for which approval has been given.
Bearing in mind the difficulties that the council undoubtedly has in regard to land and sewerage, there is really no reason to believe that it is being held back in any way by the Government's financial policies or by any of their housing policies.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.